Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORWICH) BILL.

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COINAGE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for a coinage other than silver to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings, and to confer further powers as to the purchase of metal for coinage, it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for the purchase of any metal required for supplies of coins for the public service, and the payment into the Exchequer of sums received or coin produced from metal so purchased.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COINAGE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Cupro-nickel coins to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings.)

11.3 a.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out "cupro-nickel," and to insert "nickel."
There are on the Order Paper a large number of Amendments which are consequential upon this one, and which will naturally fall when this has been disposed of. During the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, there was, I think, unanimity amongst all those

who spoke that nickel would give us a much more satisfactory coinage than would the alloy which the Government propose in Clause 1 Every speaker in every quarter of the House who expressed a view about this, came down in favour of a nickel coinage. Very little attempt was made either by the Chancellor or by the Financial Secretary to make out that cupro-nickel would be equally satisfactory, and the only argument produced by the Government against the adoption of a pure nickel coinage was the technical difficulty of producing this coinage in the Mint at the present time. The Chancellor said that our present machinery at the Mint was adapted to stamp cupro-nickel coins, but would need various modifications and changes to stamp pure nickel, and he was advised that, for all practical purposes, cupro-nickel would do. That is not very high praise of cupro-nickel.
As I understand it, the technical difficulties at the Mint are mainly the lack of furnaces which will heat the metal to its melting point, which is the highest melting point of any metal except iron. I am advised that the melting point of pure nickel is some 1,450 degrees Centigrade. Of course, these furnaces could be produced, and could be installed in the Mint, but that, I take it, would involve the Government in some little delay. On the question of delay I would say this: Our liability to repay a large quantity of silver to the United States does not fall due immediately. Our liability is to restore the borrowed silver to the United States during a period of five years beginning at the date when the President of the United States declares that the war emergency is over. That date, I understand, has not yet been reached. Therefore, there is no immediate urgency about the introduction of the new coinage, except to this very limited extent, that so far as we are retaining silver in our currency the Chancellor will have to buy, every year, a very small quantity of silver to replace coins which will have to be withdrawn from circulation through becoming bent or battered or in other respects unusable. That urgency does not seem to be so great as to justify the immediate introduction of an alloy which, it is admitted on all sides, will be unsatisfactory.
I am advised that the furnaces which the Mint require could be installed from


British production within 12 months, but I also believe that they can be immediately obtained from the British zone of occupation in Germany. I should be happy to furnish the Financial Secretary with some particulars on that point if he desired to have them. Germany had a pure nickel coinage before the war and the machinery is there, and since other people are removing capital plant from Germany for various purposes I cannot for the life of me see why, if the provision of these furnaces is the main obstacle to the adoption of a pure nickel coinage immediately, we should not remove certain furnaces from the zone of British occupation in Germany, and instal them in the Mint.

Mr. James Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman is as bad as the Russians.

Mr. Peake: Well, there has been a war, and we have won it, and we are entitled to some measure of restitution in kind where things which could be of use to us actually exist. I cannot conceive that there would be any complaint from any quarter in this country if the furnaces necessary to adopt a pure nickel coinage were transferred to here from Germany. I will not repeat the arguments in favour of pure nickel as against cupro-nickel, but, on all counts, nickel has it. Nickel will be cleaner, harder, and much less difficult to counterfeit. It will last longer, so that annual renewal of the coinage will be very much less, and it will preserve undoubtedly a much finer appearance. There has been experience with cupro-nickel coins in India which have been extremely unsatisfactory. They were introduced not so many years ago, but they have had to be withdrawn, and are now being replaced by pure nickel coinage.
11.15 a.m.
The only other argument against adoption of pure nickel which the Chancellor
brought forward was, as it were, a point of prejudice in regard to the Mond Nickel Company. I have no connection whatever with that Company, but I am convinced from the statistical evidence that the amount of nickel required for this purpose, only some 16,000 tons, over four or five years, would form a comparatively insignificant part of the

total production of nickel by the Mond Nickel Company. Moreover, nickel, of course, is an Empire product, and from the point of view of Canadian sentiment, so well expressed by the Agent-General for Ontario and Lord Tweedsmuir, in "The Times", there would be an advantage in that respect through adopting a metal which is produced almost entirely within the confines of the British Empire. Then there is the point that there is, in South Wales, a factory for treating nickel, which is now working below capacity, and we all want to do what we can to prevent distress coming back to South Wales on the scale on which it existed there before the war.
I would implore the Chancellor, if only from a personal point of view, to give us this concession. I do not think there is all this hurry about the introduction of the new coinage. Nickel, undoubtedly, will be more satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman will go down to history as the Chancellor who abolished our silver coinage, and introduced a baser metal. In recent years, we have seen more than one Minister introduce, either by force of circumstances or by design, a memorial to himself. In these days of universal suffrage and of public relations officers, Ministers seem rather to like to be associated with some physical object. We had the Anderson shelter, the thing known as the "Morrison Mousetrap"—now useful, I am told, for housing chickens, or producing mushrooms—and then the perfectly hideous bright yellow orbs which have defaced our highways for so many years, and which derive their name from a former Minister of Transport. I am anxious for the reputation of the Chancellor. If we are to have a coinage which becomes dull and yellow, attracts dirt and becomes unhygienic, and embodies the worst features of the coinages which some of us who have travelled abroad used to meet on the Continent before the war, then I am very sorry for the Chancellor's reputation.
The Chancellor, in his unregenerate days, was a scholar of Eton and King's College, Cambridge, and although he is not here I might perhaps remind him of a classical quotation in which the poet Horace told his readers that his poetry would prove a more lasting memorial than would anything raised in brass or bronze:
Exegi monumentum äere perennius


wrote the poet Horace I should like the Chancellor to raise a memorial to himself more enduring than cupro-nickel. I am sure it would be better for his reputation, better for the country, and better for our reputation as a great trading and commercial Empire.

Mr. David Eccles: I wish to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). This is not a party matter, and, now we are in Committee, we should try to get the best coinage for the country that we can. I have looked into the question of the cupro-nickel amalgam. It has been used hitherto only in coins of very small denominations, the one exception to that being the 6d. in Eire, which was introduced as a war emergency measure, because nickel was very short. That is the only exception I can find. Therefore, if we adopt the proposal in this Bill, this country will be the first country in the world to use cupro-nickel for denominations like shillings and halfcrowns. The Committee should ask itself whether that is a wise step. My right hon. Friend referred to the Indian experience. As the Committee knows, cupro-nickel coins were introduced in India, and had to be withdrawn after a comparatively short period. The amalgam was precisely the same as that proposed in the Bill, namely, 75 per cent. copper, and 25 per cent. nickel. The Indian coinage had to be withdrawn because of counterfeiting, an ancient hobby of the Indians. When one turns to the Chancellor's statement in the Second Reading Debate on the danger of counterfeiting if we have a cupro-nickel coinage in this country, one finds that he said:
It is no more easy to counterfeit and forge than the existing silver coins."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October. 1946; Vol. 427, c. 810.]
That is not accurate. First of all, I will refer to the Financial Secretary's remark that the melting point of cupro-nickel was some 200 degrees above the melting point of the existing silver coinage. I checked that and the facts are, as given to me by the best metallurgist I could go to, that the melting point of cupro-nickel is 1,180 degrees and the melting point of silver is 1,130 degrees. Therefore the difference is only 50, which is not really very significant. The real point is that the counterfeiter of silver coinage uses other metals, such as lead and zinc, and therefore, the counterfeited coin is com-

paratively easy to detect; but the counterfeiter of cupro-nickel coins does it with the same metal. Moreover, it is easy to get hold of cupro-nickel scrap, of which there is always a lot on the market. That makes the counterfeiting of cupro-nickel much easier than the counterfeiting of a coinage in which one of the principal objects for which the counterfeiting is being done is to get rid of the precious metal in that coinage and substitute a base metal. On the question of counterfeiting, the Committee ought to be careful before accepting the argument of the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary and there is nothing in it. There is something in it, because it is very easy to get hold of cupro-nickel scrap, whereas pure nickel scrap is exceedingly hard to get.
The Financial Secretary said that an argument in favour of cupro-nickel, and therefore, against nickel, was that the dies would have to be changed if nickel coins were minted. That is true but the dies are always having to be remade. Dies are not immortal. At any time the Mint is making new dies and bringing them into service. Furthermore, the Mint now makes nickel coins for Iraq, so that it has had a pilot plant experience of nickel coins. I do not think the die argument is one that should be considered seriously.
I come now to the question of the furnaces. As my right hon. Friend said, that is really the main difficulty. I was glad to hear that there is some hope of getting these furnaces from Germany, but surely in the meantime, even supposing we cannot get those furnaces, it would be possible to get the blanks made outside the Mint while the furnaces are being installed, even if it were to take a year or 18 months to get furnaces under the direct operation of the Mint. I am impressed—perhaps more so than my right hon. Friend—with the argument that we do not want any delay, because I agree that to spend our foreign exchange, of which we have all too little, on buying more silver would be a mistake. It is, therefore, a good thing that we should try to make a practical arrangement to introduce a substitute for the silver coinage in time not to have to go into the market and spend foreign exchange on silver. Perhaps the Financial Secretary could tell us whether the Treasury would be willing, for the next 12 months, to put out to sub-contract the making of nickel blanks so as to get


over that period during which the Mint would not have furnaces. If so, I think the furnace argument is not a very strong one. We know that the question of additional expense is not an argument for nickel or cupro-nickel. It was not advanced as an argument by either the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary, and I do not feel that we should deal with it today.
I cannot believe that any question of the particular company which mines and smelts nickel really influences the Chancellor's mind. One has only to consider from where we get the copper. If there was an ideological argument behind the Chancellor's refusal, and he did not want to go to what is practically a monopoly in nickel, one can only say that if he wants copper, he will have to go to a company like Rio Pinto Company, and I will not enlarge on other copper companies. There is nothing in it ideologically. We must have some better reasons given against having nickel than were given in the Second Reading Debate. The fact that these coins tarnish, that they look cheap and nasty after a short time, can be vouched for by those who have seen such coins after they have been in circulation for a number of years. We do not want cheap and nasty coins. We want coins that will be a credit to the country. The country's credit is not only dependent upon putting down the interest rate, it is dependent on a whole lot of other things as well, and one of them is a decent coinage. I hope that the Committee, in no party spirit, will examine the question of cupro-nickel versus nickel. We may be fortunate today and find that the Financial Secretary is able to do something which the Chancellor previously refused to do. I hope that we shall be able to secure from the Government a reconsideration of the whole matter, and, if possible, an outright promise that nickel will be introduced as soon as it is practicable to do so.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Perrins: It may be of some interest to the Committee to know that in Birmingham, the city of a thousand and one trades, we possess a Mint, and the opinion of the managing director of the Birmingham Mint might be of some interest and value to hon.

Members. I would commend to the attention of the Committee a letter which appeared in the "Birmingham Post" this morning from Mr. W. F. Brazener, the managing director of the Birmingham Mint, in which he deals very effectively with the question of the possibility of counterfeiting. He says that those who have some knowledge of the subject know that it is equally difficult to counterfeit coins of pure nickel or of cupro-nickel, and goes on to advance the argument that cupro-nickel was used extensively by the Admiralty during the war in condenser equipment, because of its resistance to pitting and corrosion. I feel that his argument is a very definite answer on that point.

Mr. Waiter Fletcher: I support the Amendment, and I think that we should remember the phrase used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day in a rather cheap jibe which he was making against the Mond nickel when he referred to the necessity of having an entirely detached and scientific point of view. I feel that the arguments against cupro-nickel are overwhelmingly strong, but there are some other arguments which I would like to adduce. There is no doubt that the effect of the quality of the currency of this country on other parts of the Commonwealth and on other countries must of necessity be very considerable. It is true that the Far Eastern people and the African and other native people pay particular regard to currency. I remember in 1923 what the feelings were in Uganda when the florin was introduced: there was a great upset in the native mind on matters of currency; and huge quantities of silver currency, which had been hoarded, started to come in, and even the old Maria Theresa Thaler, a first-class coin, came in, in thousands of pounds.
Many people regard currency, and the form of the currency, as being a sort of sign manual of the standards of their country. If we introduce into this country, in order to save an insignificant sum, a coin to our prejudice, it will not fall in entirely with "the detached and scientific point of view." If we introduce currency that is visibly not so good as the one which we might introduce, we shall be making a very considerable mistake. We have today an exhibition called "Britain Can Make It," and the reason


behind it is to stimulate our export drive and to show people what can be made and produced in this country, based on the high standards of all the goods we produce. If one of the main things which we produce, currency, is to be in the eyes of visitors who come to this country a second-rate coinage, and not so good as that which we could produce at little extra cost and trouble, we shall be making a costly error. I feel that the effect throughout the Empire, and through the world, will be much greater than those who have no first-hand knowledge of this subject imagine.
During the war, one of our main problems was the introduction of currencies and coinage by the enemy into countries where they would have a vital effect on economy. I know—and I think the Financial Secretary will bear me out —that it was a great worry to the Treasury as to what would happen after the war, and whether we would be able to introduce currency which would have an attraction to the native eye and make them continue in their belief in us. In the native eye, a coinage is much more than a token and a sign manual. It is a visible expression on which they base their respect for a country. I would strongly urge that we should have consultation with other countries in the Empire, and then adhere to the best currency which we can afford. There is no doubt in my mind that we shall have difficulty with other countries if in parts of the Empire, such as Australia, South Africa, Malaya, Hong Kong, we have differences in the metals used and in the outward appearance and quality of their coinage. I would ask for a reassurance that the currency of this country, and of the other parts of the Empire, is not to be lowered in quality and appearance.
One has only to go to France to see the present lighter than air currency—subject to the law of levity rather than the law of gravity—to realise that the first comment one makes in arriving in that country is "What a dud currency there is." In view of the small cost which will be entailed, I strongly urge the Treasury to reconsider, from the scientific and detached point of view, the necessity of having nickel and not crypto or cupro-nickel currency.

Mr. Keeling: When this Government came into power I had

little hopes of it on other grounds, but I hoped that it would not be indifferent to public amenities. This country is rapidly qualifying to be considered the most philistine, the most indifferent to the artistic and pleasant things of life, of any country in the world. We have during the last 100 years pulled down more beautiful buildings and put up more ugly ones than any other country in the world. Our cities have the dirtiest atmosphere of any country in the world. Our postage stamps, which advertise this country not only to the visitors to whom my hon. Friend has just referred but all over the world, are among the dullest in the world. But at least up to now we have had an attractive coinage. If the difficulties of accepting this Amendment are insuperable, I would beg the Financial Secretary to give us an assurance that, at the earliest possible moment, these new cupro-nickel coins will be called in and nickel coins substituted, so that once again we may have a pleasant coinage.

Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman below the gangway on the speech which he has made. I quite agree with him that, in the ordinary everyday life of the ordinary person in this country, coinage is of great importance, and should not in any circumstance be swept into the arena of party politics. It comes very close to all of us, and when we are handling a matter of this kind, whether it is nickel or cupro-nickel, we should be able to feel that it is something which belongs to everyone of us. Because of that—looking into the future—and having made some attempt to find out if cupro-nickel was really satisfactory, I felt obliged, the other day, to warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer, lest, by falling into this pit, he might take to himself a lifelong name of opprobrium, which would outlast possibly his own time. I did it with a genuine desire to save him from difficulties and trouble, and that is why I welcomed the speech of the hon. Member below the gangway, because it did, for the first time, bring forward some practical evidence. I wish that he had developed it from his own very considerable knowledge—I am sure it must be very considerable knowledge—but possibly he may be reserving himself to


do that later in this Debate on this question whether we can maintain a nickel coinage.
May I refer to what I think was an error made by the Financial Secretary in his speech referring to me the other day, when I made reference to the value of a magnet? The hon. Gentleman said:
The hon. Member for Torquay suggested … that one advantage about nickel is that a magnet can attract it. I believe this is perfectly true, and if we do come to nickel I imagine that all of us will carry magnets about with us on our watch chains to be quite sure that we are being given no counterfeit coins." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1946; Vol. 427. c. 844.]
That idea had never occurred to me, but naturally it does occur to the bureaucratic mind which would insist upon us all doing something inconvenient and awkward. What I really said about it—and I think it is worth being accurate on these occasions, even at the Treasury—was:
By an ordinary magnet one can detect whether a nickel coin is good or not. That is an advantage"—
only "an" advantage—
worth consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 824.]
I will not enlarge upon that method of being able to detect a nickel coin except to say that there must be occasions, not for the ordinary person in everyday life —that was far from my mind—but for those who are handling coins in considerable quantities, when a magnet might be of some use. A case in point might be those persons who handle vast amounts of coins in a tote. As a purely personal point I should like to correct as quickly as possible a false impression which has been given since I do not want it to be asserted that I am in any way responsible for the suggestion that we should always have to carry magnets. That is the kind of bureaucracy I would never undertake.
May I now deal with some considerations which I do not think have been sufficiently or accurately weighed up by the Government concerning the advantage of nickel? The other day I gave one of the reasons why I think nickel should be used as against cupro-nickel, and I received a considerable amount of support from Members of the Liberal Party and from Socialists and others. My reason was that we already had a factory in this country where this metal could be rolled

and refined. This factory happens to be in South Wales, a part of the country which has suffered badly from depression in the past, and I hoped that the Government would take up this point. But in spite of the support I received from their allies below the Gangway on this side of the House and from their own back benchers, I do not think any notice was taken of my remark. Another thing I wanted to know was whether at the present time, this factory was in anything like full production of nickel. If not, surely this would be a most admirable opportunity to ensure that at any rate for a considerable time to come, the raw material which we import from Canada should be refined and rolled and put into its preliminary state for coinage in our own country. That seemed to be a very great advantage, but it is a typical Tory idea because it would give employment and would help the working people. I did not think the Government would be so allergic to this idea that they would take little or no notice of it.
We had a very interesting speech just now from one of my hon. Friends who sits in front of me and who represents, I believe, one of the Cheshire divisions.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Lincolnshire.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Williams: I knew it was one of those places up there, but in any case hon. Members from both Lincolnshire and Cheshire make very valuable contributions to our Debates from time to time. The vigour was such that I thought it might be either. What I really wanted to say about the very valuable contribution of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) was that I am very sorry that we had not the great advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being here to hear it. I miss him very much although I am sure the Financial Secretary will do his part in his usual manner. What we learned from the speech in question was a very valuable fact that had not come out in the Debate before, namely, that when we are dealing purely and simply with the question of which metal should be used for making coins it is essential to choose one which, wherever it goes, upholds the high prestige of the British Empire. By that I mean all kinds of prestige, but above all, the high standard of workmanship which has been the great asset of our country in the


past. If we provide bad material to work with, as is intended in this case, the best workman cannot possibly make goods which last and keep well. For that reason I urge that from the widest point of view —that of the high standard of workman ship in this country—it is regrettable that nickel was not put in in the first stage of the Bill. On the arguments which have been advanced for it I hope that on this occasion, at any rate, we shall have the privilege of hearing the Government say, "Well, thank goodness we can meet you on this point." Whether they will or not I do not know, but I am one of those optimists who think that occasionally the Government may have some sense.
Another point which has not been dealt with and upon which I should like some information is the definite advantage or otherwise of cupro-nickel or nickel. I think it lies with nickel so far as slot machines are concerned; at least, that is the tendency of the information I have been able to collect. These coins will have to be of a type which can be used in slot machines, or else the whole of those machines will have to be scrapped or changed. This is a point which should be considered with care. At the present moment we are without knowledge as to which of these materials is likely to be the better, but since cupro-nickel is undoubtedly softer, surely the tendency would be that the best metal to use as far as these machines are concerned would be pure nickel, from the point of view of hardness alone. Weight is also important in connection with slot machines, but I imagine the Government must consider seriously whether the actual variation in weight of these coins in relation to silver will have any effect. Those are two points which are of value but little has been said about them in the Debate.
The question of the Canadian supply was raised by my right hon. Friend in the excellent and amusing speech with which he introduced the Amendment—if I may be allowed to criticise the Front bench to the extent of describing a speech from that quarter as excellent. Some play was made the other day about Canada. Surely, when we have a great Dominion which has helped us just as much as the United States in the matter of Lend-Lease and which has something like 90 per cent. of the nickel supply of the world, we might at any rate decide

to give them the first chance and preference in the matter of supply. I know that a great deal of copper comes from other parts of the British Empire which are equally deserving of help, but nickel is one of the specialities of Canada and that country holds a great influence in the world. If we can do this to help from the Imperial point of view, I appeal very strongly indeed to the Government not to be guided by any prejudice that it may take a little longer or that they have not quite the right machines for cutting —a theory which has been rather exploded this morning—but to go boldly ahead from the Imperial point of view.
Certain other serious matters must be referred to. The hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) pulled a coin out of his pocket, and I would like to ask him to tell us whether he thinks that is the best that Socialism can do. Whatever he thinks of me, I think very kindly of him, and I want to prevent anything of the sort to which he referred happening again in the immediate future. I hope I never see another international war, as no doubt other hon. Members do, but it is essential to the prevention of war to try to secure reserves of materials. We might secure considerable reserves of nickel in this country if we had a pure nickel coinage rather than one of cupro-nickel. Of course, I do not think that nickel is better than silver, but I certainly think it is better than cupro-nickel. It is of more lasting quality and there is not the same waste of material as there is with cupro-nickel.
I would press the Government to answer the important questions which were put to them by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I understand that this amalgam was introduced into India, and the coins made from it had ultimately to be withdrawn. What were the reasons for that withdrawal? Was it because of the deterioration of the coins or the facility with which they could be imitated? We have the right to know why metal which has proved a failure on such a great scale as I believe it did in India should now be brought in here. It is possible that since that time a new chemical or metallurgical process has been invented to overcome the difficulties experienced in India. Have the people at the Mint, or those who work


in metal, discovered any reason why we should use the metal here?
The Government urge us to assist in the great export drive. Surely there will not be any great export value in cupro-nickel, and it cannot be intended for export in any considerable amounts. In relation to their own policy, the Government would be well advised to introduce a pure nickel coinage. It is stated that this is only a temporary measure, until we can get the right method of dealing with nickel; if that is so, is it necessary to change our coinage now, in the very last days of the Session and to insinuate this base metal, for a short time only? It is a disadvantage to use a metal of this sort when it will not be permanent in any way. I am sorry I have not had time to give more reasons in favour of nickel. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will accept the Amendment and that it will not be necessary for us to say anything of the things which we shall be obliged to say if this inferior coinage is forced upon us. I support the Amendment wholeheartedly, as, I believe, almost every hon. Member does, in favour of a metal which is more worthy of the British people, more in keeping with our national standards and which experience shows is not so inferior in quality and in durability as cupro-nickel.

Mr. Scollan: After listening to the speeches, I am rather disturbed that the discussion did not finish after those of the mover and seconder. The mover put his case in a very reasoned way, with which one with any knowledge of the subject could sympathise, but as soon as the matter got into the hands of his back benchers it was taken out of its serious vein into the field of cheap party politics. It is a great pity that hon. Members behind the right hon. Gentleman do not realise the importance of this matter.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Why is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer here?

Mr. Scollan: There is a very competent Financial Secretary here with a very complete knowledge of the subject, and so long as we have people like him we do not require the Chancellor, or Ministers, on these occasions. I sympathise with the mover of the Amendment because I

do not think that sufficient study has been given to this Measure before it was brought in. When the Financial Secretary replies, I hope that he will let me know that I am wrong, but that is my honest opinion. The change in the currency has only been hinted at. My. hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) tried to give the Committee some idea of the effect of the baser metal used in British currencies abroad.
12 noon.
The first thing that strikes anyone when he goes outside these shores is the currency of the country he visits. Consider the effect in the trading communities of the Far East and of Africa, and take into consideration the prestige which was talked about of the half-crown, the shilling and the sixpence of our silver coinage. Only the American Continent will be left with a silver coinage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Abyssinia."]—We must face the facts of the penetration of American business firms into the European Continent, to say nothing of Africa and Asia. American capitalist imperialism goes on apace despite the fact that the Americans deny that they are imperialist, and we are placing in their hands a very valuable weapon, not because they have designed for some ulterior motive to get the better of us in trade, but because of the exigencies of our having to pay back this silver.
Is it not possible to get some extension of time prior to paying this back? To-day, our exports are growing and we are gradually overtaking our prewar figures. The world is crying out for more of our goods. Like a snowball, our exports are growing larger and larger. Would it not be possible, even at this late stage, to go into the question of trying to retain our silver coinage by some means and not hand it over to America? I wonder if the Americans who are so anxious to get the silver coinage out of this country realise that they created a crisis when they monopolised the gold and that they are not helping by monopolising the silver. It is a very serious matter.
I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) did not raise any more points, or many of us would have had little chance of taking part in the Debate. I was thinking when he was speaking that if a porcupine came up to be discussed in this House and the


hon. Member for Torquay got up to cover all the points, he would be as old as Methuselah before he finished.

Mr. C. Williams: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I should never try to cover every point unless it was absolutely necessary. I have more respect for the House of Commons than that. My choice in these matters rests solely upon whether the Chair sees me on such occasions.

Mr. Scollan: I agree with the hon. Member for Torquay on that point, but, unfortunately, after Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy-Speaker or the Chairman of Committees calls an hon. Member, the hon. Member is the sole judge with regard to the importance of the point. That is the very difficult point that is troubling me. When the Committee is discussing a matter of such grave importance as this, I really do not think that the question of slot machines is of very great importance.

Mr. C. Williams: I agree.

Mr. Scollan: But a great deal of time was taken up discussing it. As to the nature of the metal to be used, I said on a previous occasion that I come down heavily in favour of nickel as against cupro-nickel. I have seen cupro-nickel coins. I do not know what age they were, but they were nothing very inspiring to look at. They were a very poor type of coin. Probably they were many years old. As to the coins which were placed in the Library, any base metal can be made into coin and shown in the Library and look well. We want to see them after a couple of years' existence. After all, we do not call in coins because they are dirty and make new ones to replace them. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to tell us whether every avenue has been examined to try to stave off the need for this. Supposing we pass the Bill now, can it be staved off long enough for the country to have an opportunity of repaying this loan in some other way? I sincerely hope that we can do that.

Mr. Gerald Williams: The hon. Member for Renfrew, Western (Mr. Scollan) has deplored the fact that so many back benchers have intervened in the Debate today—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, frivolous."] During the Debate everything has pointed very definitely to the superiority of nickel over cupro-nickel—

Mr. Scollan: I did not deplore the fact that back benchers were taking part in the discussion but that they dragged the discussion down to the level of an ordinary brawl.

Mr. G. Williams: I differ from the hon. Member on that point. I hope that many back benchers may speak this morning because, like the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I am somewhat optimistic about the outlook for this Amendment. I believe that there is a very great chance today of even some humble back bencher like myself being able just to tip the scale in the right direction. For that reason, we make no apologies for our humble efforts.
This country has built up her trade on the solidness of that trade and the good stuff she has put into what she has exported. We are not expecting to export coins, but these coins are tokens of our respectability and our solidness. If a foreigner comes to this country and sees an inferior coin, it is bound to have a psychological effect on his mind. That man at present knows that the cars we produce in this country last longer than the cars of other countries, that we produce the best cloth in the world and that our furniture is solid and of long duration—or it used to be. That is the reputation we have and the reputation we want to maintain, and we do not want to mar that by now introducing an inferior coinage.
The obvious comparison, which is, of course, odious, is that with other countries who use 100 per cent. pure nickel and no substitute. If we are to be in the minority of the countries who use the mixture, it will be a retrograde step at the present moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary have made it perfectly clear that they are considering this as a temporary measure, and I think that all hon. Members of this Committee have the impression that the Chancellor himself prefers the pure nickel article. If that is the case, the only excuse for producing an inferior article now is that we have not got the machinery to produce the pure nickel coins. It has been pointed out today that that machinery may be obtainable in Germany, but in any case I am going to make another suggestion. Why should we not put off the introduction of this new coinage for a


short time, perhaps six months or a year, while we either make the machinery ourselves or procure it from another country? Will the Financial Secretary consider what would be the consequences of doing this? There would be two obvious consequences. The first is that he would lose the interest on the silver that he would otherwise draw into his pocket. That, surely, would be a small amount, but he is the best judge of what it would cost in loss of interest by not having the silver for a year or so. The other consequence would be that he would be faced with the annual cost of replacement by ordinary wear and tear and waste and the substitution of worn out coins, and he might be forced to go on to the market to buy silver for that very purpose. Perhaps he would tell us what exactly that would cost? If he is prepared to lose his interest, I suggest, for a year, and if he is prepared to buy enough silver for replacement purposes, it may only be for six months if he is also prepared to look into the best and quickest methods of setting up the machinery to produce pure nickel coins.
If he will do that, I believe the country will ultimately be very grateful to him for having done it, rather than rushing in hastily to produce an inferior article which is not worthy of this country when, by waiting a few months, he could produce the pure nickel coin which would hold up the high standards of this country of which we have been proud in the past.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Naturally I have no desire to curtail the discussion, but we have now spent an hour on this matter and it has occurred to me that the view of the Government, in the light of what has been said, may help us to come to a decision acceptable to all concerned. I have to ask the Committee to reject this Amendment for the reasons which, perhaps not as fully as some hon. Members might wish, we put to the House on Second Reading. It is not because we have any serious, or any objection at all to the use of pure nickel. The Government have quite an open mind on the material that is finally to be used. What we want, and what I am positive hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee want, is that we should have a coinage of which we can be proud—[HON. MEMBERS:

"Hear, hear."]—and that if we have to change the substance from which our token coins are made, the substance chosen should be the best available in all the circumstances. That, as I hope to show the Committee quite shortly, is what we have done.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) asked if the Government had given as much attention to this subject as it deserved. I can assure him that we most certainly have and, since the Debate on Second Reading, when fears were expressed in all quarters of the House that perhaps we were using the wrong material, I have, at the request of my right hon. Friend, given a good deal of attention to this subject. I have been down to the Mint, I have discussed this matter with the Deputy Master there, Sir John Craig, and others, and we have gone into this matter as fully as possible.
12.15 p.m.
The reason why cupro-nickel has been chosen is that it is essential in our view to stop buying silver now. I hope I may carry the Committee with me because, as one hon. Member said, this is not a party issue. We have no stocks, and it would cost the Government about a million dollars a month to continue to buy silver. It would be a drain on our dollar resources which we want to avoid. In addition, as my right hon. Friend—and I think I also made the point—pointed out on Second Reading, there is a rising market for silver owing to the very large demand by industry for silver for commercial uses. If we compete with others, it means that the price may go up still further. In addition, we have under Lend-Lease received from the United States 88 million ounces of silver, and we undertook to repay that in the course of five years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) knows, bar for bar. We cannot pay in goods, we have to pay in silver. Although it is true that they are not pressing us for repayment, it is an obligation which has been entered into, and we must, as a nation, honour our bond. Therefore, the sooner be begin to reclaim the silver in order to repay the United States, the better it will be.
So, in our search for a substitute for the silver part in our present coinage, we had to find a material which could be coined without delay. That is the whole core and substance of this matter. As I


have said earlier, we have no objection to nickel; there is a great deal to be said for nickel and, other things being equal, we would be content to use it, but we had to find something that could be used without delay. We cannot use nickel because it would mean extensive re-equipment at the Mint; we would need new melting furnaces, new rolling mills, more up-to-date annealing furnaces, and we would also want—for reasons I will give in a minute—more powerful cutters for the discs.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds suggested that we might take from Germany the necessary rolling mills and the furnaces. I will confess that I have not gone into that but, supposing we did bring them over, we would not know where to put them. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Mint is a beautiful building to look at, but the equipment it contains is in some respects not modern. One day this nation will have to consider rebuilding its Mint, and I think it will have to use another site. Therefore, if we brought this equipment over, we would have to build on another site a place in which to put it and that would take time. Those are some of the insuperable objections to the use of nickel at this moment —we have not the equipment, it would take time to get the equipment, and it would take time to build premises to house it.
Another suggestion was that even if we cannot deal with the raw material ourselves, why should we not go to some commercial firm? The name of the firm has been mentioned, and there is no harm in my repeating it. It was suggested that we should get the Mond Nickel Co. to enter into a contract with the Government for the provision of the discs. I think that if the Committee consider this for a moment they will agree that that would not be satisfactory. I, naturally, have nothing against the firm. I know it only as a name. But it would be intolerable if a great nation should have to rely on a single private firm for the material in all its processes right up to the final stage. We should be in their hands for fineness, for thickness, and in every way for the finish of the metal, right up to the time when it went through the machine and had the dies pressed upon it. Therefore, we rejected the suggestion that we should go to that company. As a matter of fact,

they would only produce the nickel, since I believe most of the processes would be done in the Birmingham area where there is one firm, and one firm alone, which would have to handle it. Nickel, as many hon. Members know, has what is called "work hardness" and flows reluctantly, even under extreme pressure. That means we should need new dies. We could not use the present dies, which are used on the silver alloy now being produced, and which can be used on cupro-nickel. It cannot be denied—although quite a number of statements from this Box have been challenged from the other side—that in hardness nickel is in a class apart. New dies with a lower "relief" would be needed, because of its hardness. If we used the present dies, coins would have to be a good deal thicker and less in diameter. Here I will join forces with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It would mean a great deal of inconvenience in regard to slot machines used by railway companies and others. Nothing has been said today about a change of design, but if we did embark on new dies that would be an opportunity to change the design. However, that would mean delay, and I think I have already indicated that delay would be impossible.
A great deal has been said by almost
every speaker in favour of nickel as against cupro-nickel. The dog has been given a bad name and, apparently, there are few friends who are willing to speak up for it. Actually, cupro-nickel has a great deal to commend it. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Perrins) read extracts from a letter in the provincial Press this morning which gave reasons why cupro-nickel is not so bad as it is painted. It was said the other day, when we debated the matter, that cupro-nickel was drab, dull, and yellowish in appearance. That is quite untrue. Hon. Members who go into the Library and see the coins placed in the glass case will agree that it is white, and as bright as nickel.

Mr. C. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman give an absolute guarantee that in two, five, or 10 years, this metal will still possess that bright outlook?

Mr. Hall: It would be very difficult to give that guarantee, and I think the hon. Member will also realise that it would be useless if I gave it. How could I imple-


ment the guarantee? These things are outside our control. The whole burden of my reply is to the effect that we are doing the best we can in the circumstances which face us. I will try to show that the fears about cupro-nickel which have been expressed in
all parts of the House will not materialise. I had an excellent example a couple of days ago of how difficult it is to tell the difference between cupro-nickel and nickel. Someone had been to Switzerland and came back with a lot of coins. There were between 20 and 30 coins, and I was invited to pick out the pure nickel from the cupro-nickel. I tried, and in only one case did I pick out the nickel coin. We looked at the dates on the coins and found that quite a large number of them had been in circulation for the best part of 30 years.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Were they of the same alloy?

Mr. Hall: Yes. Incidentally, the Master of the Mint was quite unable to differentiate any better than I was.

Mr. Nicholson: When the hon. Gentleman says the Master of the Mint, does he mean the Deputy Master?

Mr. Hall: The Deputy Master and the Superintendent saw these coins. We looked at them together, and the only way in which they could tell with certainty which were which, was by the use of a magnet. That goes to show that the fears which many people have felt and which have been voiced with such clarity and force in this Committee, may not materialise. In Ireland where they have the two coins used side by side, they find it difficult to know the difference. In fact they never trouble their heads about it. There is no truth in the suggestion that cupro-nickel is soft, and loses its shape. It does not do that any more than do other coins.
We have had no representation whatever from the Canadian Government on this matter. It is quite true that a letter appeared in "The Times". It was a very long letter but was not accurate in its facts. It was from the Agent-General for Ontario. I would ask the Committee to remember that he is not a Government official, but, if I may use the phrase without casting any reflection on him, he is perhaps the shop window for a Province

in Canada. He probably thought he was doing the best he could for an industry, a very great industry which is to be found there. We must not put more emphasis or reliance on that letter than we should. I was surprised, and rather sorry, to see the following day that a noble Lord had also written a letter. Many of us remember his father in this House, not only the speeches he made but the very great literary quality and charm of his books. I deprecate that his son, without going into the matter, thought fit to write the letter to "The Times". The facts are entirely different. We have not been approached by the Canadian Government, and this is not an insult to Canada whom we are anxious to help, in any way we can.
12.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said that cupro-nickel was only used for small coins. Without going into too great detail, I would point out that in Norway there is the krone, which is worth a shilling, in Costa Rica there is the dollar, worth 2s., and in the Argentine there is the 20 centavo, which is worth 10d. Therefore, it is not true to say that other nations have refused to use this alloy for coins of the higher denominations. There is a great deal more which I could say. Perhaps I ought to deal with what happened in India because more than one hon. Member has referred to that. There is no foundation for the statement that cupro-nickel coins were found to be unsatisfactory in India and were withdrawn. Those coins are still in circulation. What happened was what happened here in 1919. The coining of silver half and quarter rupees was suspended by the Indian Mint and, as a temporary expedient, eight anna and four anna pieces in cupro-nickel were issued instead. When the price of silver fell India decided to revert, but we in this country did not. We all understand and appreciate the action taken by Sir Austen Chamberlain after the last war when silver rose so high that its intrinsic value was greater than its face value. We did not however return to silver when the price fell, as India did. This Bill carries the matter a stage further for the reasons I have given.

Mr. C. Williams: The question of what happened in India is of considerable


importance. Was the sole reason for going back to silver that silver became cheap? Has there been no other change in the coinage except back to silver from cupro-nickel?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, but after all, what happens in India does not really affect our Debate here. We must take the thing on its merits and decide the matter in the light of the circumstances facing us. India went back to silver, and why not? Silver is a very pleasant material to use. We would like to use silver and there is no reason why we should not if times were different. India did not stop minting these coins because they could be easily counterfeited, nor because they were filthy or liable to become pitted. India decided to turn to other metals and she is now using those metals. These coins were not withdrawn and they are still in use along with the new ones. So far as the material is concerned, there is not a great deal in the suggestion that we are failing to support Canada by using cupro-nickel. The amount of pure nickel required if the coins were to be of that material is relatively very small compared with the output of the Mond Nickel Company. I cannot give the figures though I can assure the Committee that even if we changed over entirely to pure nickel, the percentage of the total output of the Mond Nickel Company which we would require would be negligible.
In reply to another point made by an hon. Gentleman opposite to the effect that if we used pure nickel it would form a useful reserve of that kind of metal for war purposes, I would point out that during the war much was made of this point in various parts of the world, but, there is not much in it. If we take the whole of our 1939 coinage in circulation as a basis, and if it was made of pure nickel, the amount of metal that could be recovered would be no more than 7,000 tons. I will not weary the Committee any longer. I have perhaps taken long enough in discussing this matter and there are a variety of Amendments on the Order Paper which deal with the point. I know the Committee feel rather disturbed at this change and that hon. Members have been impressed, either by letters in the Press or other means, with the suggestion that we should wait and use nickel. The point is that we cannot

wait. Cupro-nickel will give us an excellent coinage. We can go over to nickel later if the views now expressed by me are incorrect. At present cupro-nickel is the only material that can be used. I hope the Committee will realise that and approve this Clause without Amendment.

Mr. Peake: I do not want to speak at any length on a second occasion upon this Amendment, but I must confess that I am very disappointed by the reply which we have just heard. In fact, the Minister has gone no further towards meeting us on this Amendment today than he was prepared to go at the end of the Second Reading Debate two days ago. The hon. Gentleman told us that he has visited the Mint since the Second Reading Debate and that he found the premises to be less satisfactory in many ways than he could have wished. I entirely agree with him. When I informed him earlier in this Debate that the necessary machinery and equipment for making nickel coins were available in Germany, I hardly expected that argument to be countered with the reply that there would be nowhere in which to instal these machines if they were acquired. Of course, the machines would be installed in place of those very antiquated machines which I have often seen at the Mint.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt. We have gone into that point, not in connection with machines coming from Germany, but when considering whether it was possible to instal machines supposing they were available. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would be quite impossible in the space available and with the foundations of the buildings as they are to instal these machines, which are extremely heavy and which would need far more space than we could spare at the Royal Mint.

Sir William Darling: "Britain can make it."

Mr. Peake: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has had the best available technical advice. I ask him, first of all, to inquire about the German machinery, of which I am prepared to give him particulars, and to see whether that machinery could be installed in the premises at the Mint. Further, I ask that if it proves to be impossible to instal that machinery in the Mint, he should consider acquiring some alternative premises in which to mint our


coinage. The hon. Gentleman gives as his main reason for rejecting this Amendment that he and the Chancellor have to stop buying silver immediately. He tells us that we are spending one million dollars a month in order to maintain our silver coinage. If my arithmetic is accurate, one million dollars a month amounts to £3 million a year. Therefore, a delay for six months in order to procure the necessary machinery for minting pure nickel coins would involve us in an outlay of only £1,500,000. Surely, it is worth while considering an outlay of that character in order to secure a perfectly satisfactory coinage.
The hon. Gentleman said that the existing dies at the Mint could not be used for minting pure nickel coins. At the Mint they are continually replacing old dies with new dies. It is happening all the time. Dies wear out and their replacement is a continuous process. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Mint continually undertake the production of coins for other countries, whether inside or outside the Empire, and the cutting of new dies does not really present such insuperable difficulty as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
There has been some controversy as to the experience in India. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), one of the hon. Gentleman's supporters and a most respected Member of this Committee, said in the course of the Second Reading Debate:
In India, some years ago, this alloy"—
that is the cupro-nickel alloy—
was introduced. There it was found to be very easy to counterfeit the coins. Consequently, those coins had to be withdrawn very shortly afterwards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 15th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 825.]
That is not a statement from this side of the Committee; it is a statement from one of the most respected hon. Members on the benches opposite and was never controverted at the end of the Second Reading Debate. Now the hon. Gentleman has some further information and says that in India they reverted to silver of their own volition. I hope I have not misunderstood him.

Mr. Glenvill Hall: When my hon. Friend spoke in the Second Reading Debate I was out of the Chamber getting the usual cup of tea, and that is why I did not take up the point when I replied.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This statement was made on good authority by the hon. Member for Wrexham, and it is perfectly clear that there is a dispute on the facts which has not yet been satisfactorily resolved Then we had the experience in Ireland cited in support of the Government's case —that a cupro-nickel sixpence has been circulating in Ireland for some years. I believe the Chancellor said that the inhabitants of that island do not readily distinguish between this coin and the ordinary coins, but the facts about Ireland are very interesting. Until 1928 they had a silver coinage, but in that year they adopted a pure nickel coinage in its place and, in 1942, as an emergency measure, they introduced a cupro-nickel alloy sixpence for the first time. It will be seen, therefore, that what the inhabitants of Eire have to do is to try to distinguish between a coin made of pure nickel, which is some 20 years old, and a coin made of this new alloy, cupro-nickel, in the proportion of 75 per cent. copper and 25 per cent. nickel, which is only two or three years old. The cupro-nickel coins in Eire are virtually new coins compared with the pure nickel coins which have been in circulation there for the last 18 or 20 years. Therefore, I must confess that I find the arguments adduced on behalf of the Government on this Amendment extremely weak and disappointing.
In winding up the Second Reading Debate, the hon. Gentleman said he would give us an assurance. I thought he was going to give us something very striking in the way of an assurance. What he actually said was:
I have been asked if the Government will keep an open mind as to the metal to be used. I readily give this assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 15th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 842.]
An assurance, if you please, to keep an open mind. If the headmaster at the annual school prize giving, in disposing of the prize for English composition, said, "I award the first prize to Jones Minor, but I keep an open mind as to whether Smith Major's composition was not the best," that would really be doing what the Government are doing. It is just as if the Speaker were declaring the result of a division, reading out the numbers and saying, "The Ayes have it" and adding, sotto voce, "but I keep an open mind."

12.45 p.m.

They stipulate in the main operative Clause that it shall be a cupro-nickel coin. A few months' delay would have enabled them to have a much better nickel coinage; and a little foresight, on the other hand, would have enabled them to foresee this situation and to have made a plan against it 12 months ago. They have known perfectly well all along that they were under this liability to restore 88 million ounces of silver to the United States. That has not been sprung upon them suddenly, and they know that when the President declares the war emergency to be over they will have another five years in which to hand that silver back.

Surely, they might have begun plan? for installing higher temperature furnaces and for cutting new dies at the Mint. They might have laid their plans for all that six months or a year ago. In that event, we should not be in the difficulty we find ourselves in at the present time. I confess that I am so disappointed with the reply of the Financial Secretary that I must advise my hon. Friends to take this matter to a Division.

Question put, "That the word 'cupro-nickel' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 47.

Division No. 287.]
AYES.
[12.46 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gibbins, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Goodrich, H. E.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Noel-Buxton, Lady.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Oliver, G. H.


Attewell, H. C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.


Austin, H. L.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paton, J (Norwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Pearson, A.


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
Perrins, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Piratin, P.


Barstow, P. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Barton, C.
Haworth, J.
Ranger, J.


Battley, J. R
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Reeves, J.


Bechervaise, A. E
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Royle, C.


Belcher, J. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Segal, Dr. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, P.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Berry, H.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Simmons, C. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Binns, J.
Hynd, J. D. (Attercliffe)
Skeffington-Ledge, T. C.


Boardman, H.
Irving, W. J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Jay, D. P. T.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Bramall, Major E. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Sparks, J. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Steele, T.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Key, C. W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Symonds, A. L.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Collick, P.
Longden, F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
McAdam, W.
Thurtle, E.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Mack, J. D.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Warbey, W. N.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Diamond, J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Willey, D. G. (Cleveland)


Dobbie, W.
Marquand, H. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Medland, H. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Messer, F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Edelman, M.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Williamson, T.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Montague, F.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Moody, A. S.
Yates, V. F.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Morley, R.



Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewart, R.
Moyle, A.
Mr. Collindridge and


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Beechman, N. A.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Bower, N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Hon. A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Byers, Frank
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Carson, E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Challen, C.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duthie, W. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.



Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Major Conant and Major Ramsay


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "forty," and to insert "sixty."
It will be noticed by anyone who has taken the trouble to look—and I am sure every hon. Gentleman has, as well as every right hon. Gentleman, or some of them—that the main basis of this Clause, as stated in the marginal note, is:
Cupro-nickel coins to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings.
We have been dealing with the first part of those words, and the point with which I wish to deal is whether 40s. is really the right amount to have as the maximum legal tender for payment by coin. That is the principal point of my Amendment. I raise this at the present time because it must be realised that in this country we have had the fixed sum of 40s. as legal tender for a very long while. I am not sure how long. It is like other things which have gone on for a long while. They are not necessarily good, and when dealing with figures of this kind they are not necessarily the right amounts. I raise the matter today because I realise very clearly that a matter of this kind, although not of vital importance to many of us, may possibly come to be of importance at any point in the life of any human being in this country—that is to say, the maximum amount we can pay in coinage.
It is a matter which has rarely been discussed in the House of Commons. I do not know how long it is since it has been discussed. I have no doubt the Financial Secretary will be able to tell me. What is the good of a House of Commons if on a matter which affects the ordinary, everyday life of the individual, when we have a chance in Committee, as we have today, of going into it, we cannot be allowed more than a minute or two to see whether, in fixing the figure

of 40s., we are deciding something which is an approximately right amount for the maximum payment in coin which can be tendered legally? I have suggested the figure of "sixty" in lieu of the figure of "forty." If the Committee will do me the honour of accepting my Amendment, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury view my Amendment with approval— which, of course, undoubtedly they should do—then the amount which could be tendered in coinage for legal payment would, in future, be 60s. Quite frankly, I am not wedded to that figure in any way. If the Financial Secretary says, "Well, I am a bit of a Tory and I ought to go further, to, say, 65s. or 75s., and we will accept that sort of Amendment," I am perfectly willing to agree. However, I am not willing merely to accept the figure of 40s. simply because it has been there for a very long while, and because it is a revered sort of figure which we will not change when we get the chance. We have a chance to change it today.
1.0 p.m.
With those few, preliminary remarks, may I give one or two reasons why I think 40s. is not the best figure? Before I do that I would like to ask the Financial Secretary for how long 40s. has been the right legal payment, and if in drawing up this Bill, and before my Amendment was put down, the Treasury gave any consideration—as they ought to have, and as I believe they would have liked to have—to whether now might not be an appropriate moment to make a change more in keeping with the modern value of the purchasing power of money. As far as the 40s. is concerned, that has been in operation a long while. While not blaming any party or any Government


during the time they have been in power, 40s. now has a lower purchasing power. When it was originally made 40s., it was, I admit, deemed a convenient amount of cash which might be handed over; and when the sum was above that amount, it was right and easier to pay it, presumably, in those days in either gold or notes. But, today, when we no longer have gold, and when 40s. is very much less in value than it was, I would suggest that this is an appropriate occasion when, from many points of view, we might allow a larger payment in cash to be legal, if accepted on both sides, rather than keep to this somewhat prehistoric figure.
Let us look at the matter of wages. It may or may not—generally speaking it would—be convenient to have wages paid in paper money, but I can conceive occasions, especially if we get to the time when we have a very large number of slot machines, when it might be much more convenient occasionally, not ordinarily—I am using my words very carefully on the matter—to have a larger sum paid in cash. There is another thing. I think that at the present time the Government are taking some interest in the tote and in betting. Here is a thing of which, I admit, I speak in complete ignorance, but I have no doubt that, at any rate, one of my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench can help me. Perhaps the sum of 40s. as legal tender, either from the tote or in ordinary booking circles, may be increased. I understand everyone pays 2s. into the tote and when it pays out it has to pay out in notes. Might it not be easier, in certain instances, for amounts up to 60s. to be paid out in coins? This is not a thing about which I know, but, at any rate, on the Front Bench opposite there are three highly placed betting men.
There is another point. One of the cases where payment in cash is most demanded at the present time is in the courts. There has been a tendency for fines to go up. If the Government are pushing up the fines in the courts, then, surely, they ought to be able to accept legal tender in their own coinage to a larger amount than 40s. That is one of the points I would emphasise. Here is another instance of why this sum of 40s. should go up. Think of the enormous amounts of increased taxation today. At every turn, wherever one goes in

ordinary life, one can find an instance of where 40s. really represents very little as compared with what it did when originally the payment of 40s. in coins was made legal tender. These are only a few considerations as far as the actual 40s. is concerned, but I wish to make another point. We have been told that these "dirty Daltons" will help the Government in the urgent need to get silver back. They want it for repayment. If it were legal to pay a larger sum in silver in respect of taxes, would it not be an encouragement to the public to pay in silver? The Government would be able to hasten on the time of repayment tremendously if one could pay up to 60s. or 80s. in silver coinage. I am willing to meet the Government on the point of the higher figure. We would get the silver very much quicker than we shall by keeping the 40s. maximum as legal tender. It is, obviously a point which they must consider before they reject my Amendment. My suggestion is one which will help them to get enormous quantities of silver back quickly. They will have a real and hopeful way of getting their silver quicker, to pay it over under Lend-Lease; and that is the whole object of the Bill.
These are some of the reasons why, in moving this Amendment, as I do, I hope the Government will look at it. There is the point of view that 40s. is not necessarily the right figure, and that they could get their silver very much more quickly and be able to pay it out to America. I cannot find very much reference to the point of the legal tender having been discussed for a very long time, and for that reason I think it is the clear duty of the Committee to ask, and of the Government to inform us, why, on this occasion, the Government still keep the 40s. limit, as the right and ideal one for legal payment. Above everything else, I urge the Financial Secretary not to miss the chance—he and the Treasury may not have thought of it—of getting the money in more quickly, so that we can repay silver in bars to the Americans.

Sir William Darling: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in this matter. Earlier today we heard some observations about the amount of time taken up by Back Benchers discussing this important question, but I am one of those who believe


that this is a most important question, and that it is basically one to which the Committee must give close consideration. I am one of those who have respect for money, and lack of respect for money is
indicated by these empty Benches. When we had the Second Reading of this Bill I noticed that the whole time taken was two hours, 27 minutes, and that the Chancellor gave us only 14 minutes of his time. It is true the Financial Secretary has amply, in his way, made up for those disadvantages, but I would say we have not given anything like the intimate consideration to these many projects that we should. The Amendment deals with a matter which, I agree with my hon. Friend, doubtless has not been considered for at least half a century. It seems to me the time has now certainly come to review it.
We know the attitude of some Members of His Majesty's Government is that money is merely meaningless symbols, but a very
different view is held by their very considerable following in the country. Money is not meaningless symbols to the wage earners and voters of this country.
This change of the figure of 40s. to 60s. is certainly one which arises very properly, for it is important. There is a preference in the public mind for metal tokens, and this gives the public an opportunity of exerting their preference more extensively. Rightly or wrongly, there is still a larger measure of confidence in in metal coinage than there is in paper money, and the increase of the token payment, of the legal tender payment, from 40s. to 60s., as proposed in the Amendment, would, in my opinion, march with the tendency generally in financial affairs. The hon. Member for Torquay gave many examples. I do not want to multiply them, but the Financial Secretary must be aware that the amount of token coinage required is greatly increased by certain enactments of the present Government. The normal price of commodities in earlier days was £2, or £2 10s., or £3, and so on. But now we find that owing to the incidence of Purchase Tax there are odd payments, such as £2 16s. 8d., or £1 14s. 10d., and the like. There is a greater variation in the standards of prices, and that would offer some justification for abandonment of this legal tender limit of 40s. At any rate,

the Financial Secretary must justify the present sum, because such a change as is proposed needs consideration and, if reconsideration, justification. If 40s. was good enough half a century ago, is it good enough now? Great changes in our financial and social structure have left this figure unmoved. Are the Government determined at all costs to follow precedent? We heard a few days ago that they were not returned to follow precedent, but to repudiate it. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary accepts all the opinions of those behind him, but that view was, nevertheless, expressed and louldly applauded. I want to know whether the precedent of 40s. is to be maintained, and if so, why?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sure that the Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) for raising this matter. I fully realise why they have done it. They are desirous of taking this opportunity to help the public to greater facilities and wider limits when paying bills. But I am sorry that I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. This form of words is in the Bill because we must put cupro-nickel coins on exactly the same footing as silver alloy coins. The amount for which the present token coins is legal tender is 40s. That limit has been in existence since 1816, and this ground might be a reason why the amount should be looked at. However, the limit causes no inconvenience whatever to the public. It does not mean that they cannot tender more than 40s. in token coins if they so desire, and does not prevent a shopkeeper or anyone else from accepting a higher sum than 40s. in cupro-nickel or silver alloy coins. The wording of the Bill continues the existing arrangement. If we accepted the Amendment this is what would happen: If you had silver alloy coins in your pocket you could only legally tender them up to the value of 40s., but if you had cupro-nickel coins you would be able to tender them up to a value of 60s. That would be an absurdity. I think that the hon. Member for Torquay must have forgotten that the coins will look very much alike—

Mr. C. Williams: No.

Mr. Hall: Indeed they will. That is our view, and time alone will prove it


correct or not. The only way one will be able to tell a cupro-nickel coin from a silver alloy coin will be by the date. It would be the height of absurdity, in our view, if one set of coins, according to their date, were legal tender up to 60s., and the other were legal tender up to 40s. only. For that reason, if for no other, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: The argument of the Financial Secretary is so completely hopeless, and can be so easily overcome, that I cannot let it go unanswered. What he said about the difficulty of having one set of coins of legal tender up to 40s and another set of legal tender up to 60s can be simply overcome by the means of a slight Amendment on the Report stage. It may be that I should have looked at this Amendment before from that point of view, but never have I heard from the Treasury the sort of argument which the hon. Gentleman has just put forward. They know, as well as the newest Member of the Committee knows, how easy it would be to amend this Clause if the Government wished to study the public convenience. If that is all they have to go on then they have no case for rejecting the Amendment. The Financial Secretary said that no one is prevented from paying, or being paid, more than 40s. Of course he is not; no one ever supposed that he was, least of all myself. It never entered into my mind that the hon. Gentleman would put forward such an argument. What it does mean is that you can refuse to accept more than 40s. as legal tender. I am not a lawyer, and I notice that, as usual, the lawyers, on this purely legal question, have completely neglected the Committee, although they have very little to do nowadays. Two dummy
rabbits have been put up by the Financial Secretary, and I am bound to say that I have never heard anyone representing the Treasury put forward such an argument. I am sorry to take that point of view, but when we are discussing affairs concerning the people, and we get such flippant replies, I think it is a shame to take the House of Commons to that low level.
The Financial Secretary said that the present figure had been in existence since 1816. That is 130 years ago. During the whole of that time there has been no change, here we have a new Government

pledged to put everything right, and with a chance to do something in that respect in this Bill. The Financial Secretary does not think that this is a convenient time for a change. I have heard that sort of thing from Front Benches before, and it usually means that the change will not be made for a long time. A little consideration by the Treasury, and other Departments, could have put this matter right. They need not have left it to the inspiration of a Private Member. We should not be tied to something that was done in 1816. From those points of view, the Government have hot treated this Amendment, which could affect every human being in the country, with the respect that it deserves. I regret that the Government have refused to accept the Amendment, and have not brought serious arguments to bear upon the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: This is a fundamental Clause, but as we have had a discussion on the question of cupro-nickel and the exact amount for which the coins should be legal tender, we have already said much of what could be said on the Clause. I would, however, like to ask one or two questions. The Clause states:
A tender of payment of money, if made in coins of cupro-nickel which have been issued by the Mint in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and have not been called in by any proclamation made in pursuance of the Coinage Act, 1870 (in this Act referred to as 'the Principal Act'), shall be legal tender….
The question I want to ask is whether there is any proportion of coins in existence today which have not been called in under that Act. Whether or not we are actually legislating on that matter, I am not sure, but I would like to know why the 1870 Act is the only Act that is brought in. We are largely without legal advice today on this very technical matter, and we are being asked to accept the 1870 Act as the grading principle in this Clause. For that reason I would like to have the information for which I have asked.
Although I do not accept the principle of this Clause, I must say that, if we have to leave silver, this Clause could have been, and would have been but for the obstinacy of the Government, much better than it is. There has been a lack of


attention on the part of those who should have been here, the leading figures on the Government Front Bench. In saying that, I would like, however, to thank the Financial Secretary for his courtesy to me and to other hon. Members. It is unfortunate that this Clause, which could have been amended and made better, still goes as one of the principles in the Bill. It lays us open to a coinage which will be indifferent in character, a sad falling off from the old coinage, and one which will not be a credit to the Government or people of this country, or to the trade and industry of our community and Empire.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Weight and composition of cupro-nickel coins.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: I hope that, purely as a matter of courtesy, we shall have an explanation of certain points in this Clause. In the first part of it the matter of cupro-nickel is dealt with, but the Clause goes on to deal with other matters, and I would like to have an explanation of the proviso which reads:
Provided that in the making of such coins a remedy (or variation from the standard weight and composition specified in that Schedule) shall be allowed not exceeding the remedy allowance therein specified.
I will not deal at present with the actual allowance, which can be dealt with better on the Schedule, but I would like to know whether these are the usual words that are included in a Clause of this nature dealing with weight and composition. Is the Financial Secretary certain that they cover the whole of the point?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I can give that assurance. These words are common form in this connection. They simply provide for what we would call infinitesimal variations in the weights of coins. Human nature being what it is, it is not possible to get coins exact to the millionth part of an ounce or a pennyweight or whatever the measurement and weightage is. This provision permits certain tolerations and variations. They are extremely tiny. The hon. Gentleman may rest

assured that the words are necessary, that they mean no more than they say, that they are common form, and that they are needed.

Sir G. Fox: Can the Financial Secretary give an assurance that the weight of the new coins will be more or less the same as that of the present silver coins? Will they work in the automatic slot machines on the London Passenger Transport system? It is very important for the public to be assured that both the ordinary silver shillings and the new cupro-nickel shillings will work the machines. I always understood that if one put into the machine a coin which purported to be a shilling, but which was not, the machine would throw it out. I understood that by some means the machine rejected a bad coin. I would like to know what will be the position if the Financial Secretary and I each have a shilling, one silver and the other cupro-nickel. What will the machine do? Will it in both cases give a twopenny ticket and 10d. change?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the new coins will go into the machines, and that the machines will not differentiate in any way. They will not be, as some hon. Members have been, critical of the new coins; they will accept them just as they do the present ones, and if it is a question of change for a shilling, the machine will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the same change as he would get from a shilling made of silver alloy.

Mr. C. Williams: I would like to thank the Financial Secretary for the answer he gave me. I will, of course, accept what he said.

Mr. Norman Smith: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to speak twice on this matter?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Anderson): It is quite in Order.

Mr. Williams: I understand the desire of certain hon. Members to suppress debate, but I do not think that form of brutality is in Order. I accept what the Financial Secretary has said. I am not sure, however, that he has had considerable discussion about this outside. If there is any variation, I am sure he would not mind letting me know.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter was gone into with the utmost care. There is a. trial called the trial of the pyx at which, every year, these coins are very carefully looked at. One in every so many is thrown into a box and examined, and the Goldsmith Company take so many coins, examine, weigh and assess them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that British coinage will not suffer under this Bill and all the safeguards that there have been in the past will continue.

Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having added enormously to the interest of this Debate on this matter. I have never doubted the standard of testing coins, but I was doubtful as to whether he had used the right word in the last paragraph. I have never doubted that His Majesty's Mint, in dealing with these things, have been anything but perfect and correct.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the trial of the pyx. Can he tell us if any changes have taken place in that trial commensurate with the modern usage of coins. Does it test the automatic machines of the railways and of the Metropolitan gas companies? The trial of the pyx is an ancient institution of great value, but the coins in the days when the trial of the pyx was introduced were tested for fineness and quality. Now that the coin is used largely for mechanical purposes does he propose to extend the trial of the pyx to meet the necessities of a modern and somewhat more complex civilisation?

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Additional powers exercisable by proclamation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Peake: I do not think that we can part with Clause 3 without some explanation of its form and some protest at the method of delegated legislation which it proposes to adopt. The Clause says that the powers exercisable by Proclamation under Section 11 of the Coinage Act, 1870, shall include powers to do three things set out in the Clause, the most important of which will be found in Paragraph (c) which are powers:

to make as respects coins of a metal or mixture of metal other than cupro-nickel.
the like provision as is made by Section 1 of this Act.
The Clause also gives powers by Proclamation to vary the provisions of the Schedule to the Act as to the composition of coins of cupro-nickel, and, thirdly, to diminish the estimate or variations allowed by the Act in the case of any coin. The effect of this is to enable the future composition of our coinage, so far as it is a metal coinage, to be varied at any time by means of a Royal Proclamation. If hon. Members refer to Section 11 of the Coinage Act, 1870, they will see a number of things therein set out which may be done by Her Majesty Queen Victoria, by Proclamation, and at the end of the Section they will find the words:
Every such proclamation shall come into operation on the day therein in that behalf mentioned, and shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act.
That is to say, that anything done by Royal Proclamation has the full powers of an Act of Parliament from the date attached to the Proclamation. This, of all forms of delegated legislation is the most objectionable, and if the hon. Gentleman and his advisers would refer to the report of the Donoughmore Committee, which reported in 1938—a very heavyweight committee which sat upon this question of ministerial powers—he will find some rather harsh things said about legislation in this form, because what we are in fact saying, when we say that these powers set out under Clause 3 may be exercised by Royal Proclamation, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may, at any time, change the composition of our coinage to any metal he pleases or any combinations of metal, and, as from the day on which the Proclamation is made, those changes shall have the full force of statute law.
While we may probably assume that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is unlikely to make our metal coinage even nastier and cheaper than it is now going to become, through the introduction of cupro-nickel alloy, heaven knows what may happen to our coinage if the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) were to follow the Chancellor. It would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make our currency of any metal he pleased and in any shape or size. Whatever he did by Royal


Proclamation could not be debated in this House, unless the Government of the day decided to give time for that purpose.
The matter could not be raised by
Petition or Prayer, and it could only be raised if a majority of the House decided that a Debate must take place. Therefore, I think that this form of legislation is unfortunate. It would have been better in this matter of the composition of our currency to have adopted a form of words which would have made it necessary for Regulations to be made and laid on the Table of the House in order to give hon. Members an opportunity for discussion.
I do not propose to invite my hon. Friends to vote against the Clause, because I do not think that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to make our coinage nastier and cheaper than it is going to become under Clause 1 of the Bill. Any change which he makes will, I think, be towards procuring for us a better coinage, and we have urged today that he should adopt a pure nickel coinage for that purpose. Spokesmen for the Government have indicated that, at some future time, they may adopt pure nickel coinage, and Clause 3 gives them power to do so without further legislation. Therefore, although I think that the form of this Clause is objectionable and should not pass this House without criticism, I shall not divide the House.

Sir Arthur Salter: I should like to support very strongly what my right hon. Friend has just said about the procedure proposed in this Clause. I think that there is hardly any task of this Parliament more important than that of seeing that under the accelerated and extended legislation now taking place, very largely of necessity in the form of delegated legislation, the essential liberties and rights of this House are maintained. In this Bill I think that the procedure is perhaps more important than the actual substance of the problem of the change in our currency which is under consideration, I very earnestly press upon the Government that when introducing Measures which provide for delegated legislation they should pay the closest regard to the recommendations which have been made by important bodies such as the Donoughmore Committee, to which my right hon. Friend has referred. At the present time, delegated legislation

must extend very widely, and if Parliament is not to abdicate its functions altogether it is of the utmost importance that every practical safeguard should be preserved, in particular those which have been recommended after careful consideration by such Committees.
While I do not propose that we should divide on this Clause, I am a little nervous about the reason for not dividing given by my right hon. Friend, namely, that he is satisfied, no doubt rightly, that the present Chancellor will not make foolish use of the powers given to him under this Clause. I am very much disturbed in this Parliament at the frequency of the cases in which a particular blank cheque, or very widely drawn cheque, is provided in a Bill and is then defended by a statement that the particular Minister who happens to be in Office at the moment has no evil intentions and is not likely to act unwisely. A blank cheque, subject only to the safeguard of such assurances, even when Parliament entirely believes in the sincerity of those assurances, is not true legislation, and Parliament is not fulfilling its legislative function. I would therefore urge very careful consideration of the point of procedure to which my right hon. Friend has called attention.

Mr. N. Smith: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has made a perfectly valid point about delegated legislation. Not all of us like it; I personally do not, even though one day, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, it may place in my hands power which I will proceed to use and which I hope I may have the opportunity of using. The right hon. Gentleman is very wise in his way and I often find him extremely human to deal with, but "When the devil is sick the devil a saint would be." Now that they are in Opposition the Tory Party, in that sense, represent the devil. They are not against the Clause standing part. Why not? Because their common-sense tells them that if there is anything in the fears about cupro-nickel coinage the easiest way to put it right is to give complete power to my right hon. Friend to make a Royal Proclamation. That is only commonsense. I want to place on record, as a responsible Member of Parliament, some misgiving about delegated legislation. These misgivings are not restricted to the other side by any means. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North


Leeds referred to cheap and nasty currencies. I can assure him that the people who sent me here look upon a coinage or currency as cheap and nasty not according to its intrinsic merits or demerits but according to what it will buy for them when they take it shopping.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope we may now dispose of this Clause without much further Debate because it seems to me that the Committee is under a misapprehension. In this Bill my right hon. Friend is not taking unto himself new and extensive powers. I think we all agree that when it comes to delegated legislation Parliament should be very jealous on behalf of the citizens at large as to what powers it does give in this way to the Government of the day, whatever its complexion. But here all we are wanting to do is to give power to the Government to alter the content of the token coinage, if and when something better than what is contained in Clause 1, namely, cupro-nickel, is found. In these days of widespread research, I, for one, hope that it is a possibility that some new metal, good in appearance and attractive to look at and to use, will be found. We have to make provision for that in the Bill, and I do not think anyone objects to this.
What the Committee objects to is that any change that may be made should be made by Proclamation. It has probably slipped the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that this is, in fact, a tightening up of the law. Under existing legislation it is permissible in the case of coins composed of metals other than pure silver for the Government of the day to vary them without coming to Parliament at all and without making a Proclamation. It can be done quite silently, without, in effect, telling anybody. No one would do that, of course, but our proposal that it should be done by Proclamation is in fact, as I have said, a tightening up of the existing law.
The question arises why we should want to do it by Proclamation. The answer is that the Royal Prerogative is involved. The Prerogative in this direction has grown up down the ages and all of us are aware of how it has happened. The coinage is in a special class apart so far as the Royal Prerogative is concerned and it is essential, if

we are to keep continuity, in this direction at any rate, that the King's right to do these things by Proclamation should not be restricted or altered in any way. Finally, although this is done by Proclamation, it is possible for Parliament to annul by Prayer, if it is so minded, any Proclamation that has been made by the Government of the day in the name of the King. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will be willing to let us have the Clause.

Mr. Peake: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would make one point clear. Does he tell the Committee that under existing legislation the Chancellor could have introduced a cupro-nickel coinage in place of the existing silver coinage without consulting Parliament and that this Bill has been brought before the House only as a matter of courtesy? Is he saying that powers exist under some Act which enable the Chancellor to vary the metal content of our coinage?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should perhaps have explained myself further. We have under existing legislation coins composed of 50 per cent. silver and 50 per cent. an amalgam of other metals forming an alloy. So far as concerns the 50 per cent. composed of other metals the Government has complete power to take out the zinc or the copper, or to alter the percentage of copper as compared with other metals, without coming to the House. So far as the 50
per cent. silver in the coins is concerned this is not so, and I had hoped that I had made that clear.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for that last explanation. Before he gave it I thought the position was far worse than had been stated by my right hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) and other hon. Members.
The position was that under the old Act the Government had the power to change the alloy but not the percentage of silver, in the same way that they had the power to change a particular type of paper or ink used for printing notes. The Financial Secretary said that this provision for a Proclamation was really a concession. It does not matter so much in this Bill as in certain other Acts, because we are now going in for a complete debasement of the currency, one of a peculiarly unpleasant


form. It does not really matter what the Government do. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the Government can change the alloy only to improve it. Surely they can change it in order to make it worse?
No precedent has been put forward for this Clause. Is there any? Or is it something entirely new which has been stuck into the Bill at the whim of the present Government? The fact remains that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University did something of real value when he pointed out that this is just another occasion when the Government are trying to pass what is entirely delegated legislation. Both the front Benches are slightly to blame. Hon. Members say that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will not abuse it, although some future Chancellor might. We are here to make good laws, and not laws which are all right so long as the particular Minister is in office to administer them. It is absolutely wrong, from every point of view, to say that it does not matter very much about passing a Bill, since no one will abuse it. It is our duty to make our laws watertight, and not subject to abuse.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University for the way in which he has raised the point, against which hon. Members have protested on many occasions. The tendency is growing at an accelerated rate under this Government. Other Governments have been bad, but the present Government are getting worse. I welcome also the protest made by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith). Whatever he may have said otherwise this morning, he did at any rate take the trouble to get up and express the views of a private Member of this House.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Standard trial plates.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: There seemed some doubt, on this question of standard plates and breaking up of the old plates, about obtaining new standard plates. The Government have stressed that they are not yet able to get the standard plates

and the right dies for stamping. I should like to ask whether there will be any change under this Clause. Having a Clause of this kind enables the Government to make trial plates. Why is there such difficulty in getting trial plates? Subsection (3) states:
Plates shall be made as aforesaid from time to time when necessary, and the provisions of section sixteen of the principal Act as to the custody and keeping of standard trial plates, and of books, documents and things used in connection therewith, and as to duties in relation thereto shall apply to plates made under this section.
What provision is there in the Clause for the breaking up of the plates? I do not want the Government to have to present a new Bill shortly in connection with this matter. The breaking up of these plates and dies is a serious matter. Proper provision should be made to see that they do not get into the hands of naughty people.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when the plates cease to be useful for the purpose they are made to serve, every care is taken that they do not get into the wrong hands. I can assure him that the wording of the Clause is in common form and is in line with Section 16 of the Act of 1870, which relates to trial plates, the care of documents and all the rest of it.

Mr. C. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Has there been no improvement since 1870, to enable the Government to get the plates? The plans of this Government always seem to date back to the Victorian age. The Government never seem to have a new idea of any sort, even in such a matter as this industry, in which there has been produced so much machinery.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Fineness of Maundy silver coins.)

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "thirty-seven," and to insert "thirty-eight."
I should like your Ruling, Mr. Anderson, whether I can discuss this Amendment, together with the two later Amendments


in my name—in page 3, line 34, to leave out "three," and 10 insert "two"; and in page 3, line 35, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert "fifty."

The Temporary Chairman: I think that will be convenient, if the Committee have no objection.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: The principle of the Amendments is the same. I think most of us agree with the Clause, which lays down the fineness of the silver to be minted into what is known as Maundy money. It is historic money, and it is not necessary for me to go into that aspect of the matter. The Clause lays down that there shall be a standard of fineness of thirty - seven fortieths of fine silver, and three fortieths of alloy, or a millesimal fineness of 925. I wish to take that one step forward towards fineness from 37 fortieths to 38 fortieths. My second Amendment takes the three fortieths of an alloy down to two fortieths so that there will be a higher amount of silver and a lesser amount of alloy. Then there is also my third Amendment in which I hope I have the proportion right. My reasons for this is very simple. I do not want to lay this down for certain in case it is found that we cannot make these silver coins with quite such a high percentage of silver. I should have thought that today, after modern inventions in alloys and the strengthening of the many materials in them, it would be possible to do so. I am not necessarily tied to the actual figure of the third Amendment, and in increasing the 37 to 38, I am willing to go even further. My object is that as this will in future be the only coin in this country with any considerable content of silver, it should be made as nearly as possible a coin entirely of silver. It may well be that for holding and wearing performance it is not possible to make a completely silver coin, and that we must have some alloy. I am not asking anything which the Government can possibly say will cost any money. The whole cost would be some £60 or £70 a year. The only ground on which the Government can turn this down is that we cannot make a really lasting and good coin with a lower percentage of alloy than there is now.
I do not know if there is any hon. Member here who is interested in collecting coins. I happen to have a minor interest.

Take Maundy money, which is historically very old. I do not suppose that there is anything like so old a coin in that sense in Scotland. It is extremely interesting, and the coins are very much prized by those who have them. Undoubtedly they should be kept as real treasures for the future. I would, therefore, like to have the highest possible standard of silver. I know of no reason why the percentage of silver should not be increased. I move this Amendment hoping that the Government realise that it is only with the intention of improving the money.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when he hears me ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. In 1920, when a change was made in our silver coinage, in order to avoid extra trouble the Maundy money was made of the same alloy—that is, it contained as much (fifty per cent.) silver— as the new silver coinage. Now we are going away from silver altogther. Therefore, the question arises whether we should use 50/50 silver and alloy in the Maundy money, as has been the case since 1920, or go over to cupro-nickel which, I think the Committee will agree, is undesirable, or should we abolish the coins altogether. No one would be in favour of this last suggestion, for it keeps alive an old ceremony, traditional in its charity and sense of fellowship as between the Sovereign and those less fortunate. The question then arises as to what the Maundy money shall be made of. We have decided—I hope the Committee will think, rightly—to go back to the content that existed from at least 1279 until 1920. In this sense we are very conservative in our outlook, and we think 1279 to 1920 is a pretty good record to follow for the content that we suggest should now go into the little silver coins. I am informed that the percentages go even further back into Saxon times. I hope that the Committee will not break with tradition at the instigation of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) but will stick to the percentages of the Clause.

Mr. C. Williams: I would not for one minute ask the hon. Gentleman to break the tradition. The tradition has already been broken by the previous Act of 1920—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are going back to it.

Mr. C. Williams: I agree that we are now going back to that. I was not aware that it went back to 1279—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: At least to 1279.

Mr. C. Williams: As I am always amenable to arguments and always accept an argument with great willingness if it is a good one, I feel almost inclined to withdraw my Amendment on the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is an astonishing situation that so far he has shown little or no argument, helpfulness or desire to be helpful but that on this occasion he has brought forward the fact that there is a precedent and that this coin ran for all these hundreds of years. It should be carried on, but I would like to know whether we could not have a finer silver. The senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) might want a higher standard, but as far as I am concerned I will willingly follow the old precedent and accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Further powers as to purchase of metal for coinage.)

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out from "include," to "a."
This Amendment does not seem at first sight to be of any great consequence, but it is an Amendment which should be made, or, at any rate, before these words are included in the Bill, we should have some very close explanation of the position.
The words I propose to leave out are:
and shall be deemed always to have included.
It seems to me that when we are legislating in Clauses for further purchases of metal for coinage, that is a pretty wide term. It is, in a sense, retrospective legislation when those words are included. How long does that go back? It could take us right back to the time of the Scottish kings, or to any other time one likes to think about. Unless I can have a legal opinion to the contrary. I stand very clearly by the point that it means an indefinite time. That is my reason for moving this Amendment. These words

seem to be entirely unnecessary, are certainly of a retrospective nature, and have no part in modern legislation.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I can give a brief explanation which will satisfy the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He is quite right. We are here making retrospective legislation in order to modernise a word which, when used in 1870, had a certain meaning which has since narrowed down. In the 1870 Act, the word "bullion" covered not only precious metals but other metals as well. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that "bullion" is now normally taken to mean the precious metals. It may be said that we ought to have made this change before, and to have altered the meaning of the word when the 1920 Act was passed. I was not in the House then, but some hon. Members of the Committee who were, or who have knowledge, will perhaps remember that the 1920 Act was purely an amending Act to the 1870 Act, so this is the first real opportunity since 1870 for giving the word "bullion" its new and up-to-date meaning. That is all we are trying to do in the words which the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete. I think they are essential and therefore I hope he will not carry his objection further.

Mr. C. Williams: In the circumstances, I do not think it will be necessary to carry the Amendment to a Division. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation and, although these words are retrospective, I accept that they are necessary because this definition of "bullion" should have been made in the 1920 Act. So many of these retrospective Clauses are put into Bills, however, that it is part of the duty of a Committee of the House to examine them very carefully. That is why I put down the Amendment, but as I am satisfied now that this is not a really bad case of retrospective legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, construction and citation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: There is just one point with which I have been asked to deal.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: May I ask the hon. Gentleman who asked him to deal with it?

Mr. Williams: I have been asked to make quite certain of one point. There is no rule under which I have to say who asked me but, if the hon. Gentleman had had the courtesy to wait for a minute, he would have understood why the point has been raised.

Mr. G. Thomas: I have waited for an hour.

Mr. Williams: I think I am right in assuming—but I wish to be quite certain on this point—that there is no necessity to put in anything about Northern

Crown
…
…
…
436·36363
28·27593
—
2·000
0·1296
—

The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that the crown or five-shilling piece will be retained in our coinage. Such is the courtesy with which the hon Gentleman and the Chancellor, who is incidentally the Master of the Mint, have treated me, that I hope it may be accepted, and I will try to be as brief as possible. The five-shilling piece is a noble coin. It has had a most distinguished numismatic history. There have been 26 crowns issued altogether; I have them here if any hon. Member would like to see them. Some are most beautiful pieces. It is a most noble and magnificent coin and, if for historic reasons only, I think it should be preserved. However, I do not bring forward this point merely for historic and numismatic reasons. The crown is not just a curio. I believe the public would widely welcome it being put into a larger circulation than it has been in the past.

I think there is a trace of the Mint or the Treasury having rather a prejudice against this coin. At one time the Royal Society had to intervene to get the Government of the day to issue a George V Crown piece. I hope what is said in this Committee today will to some extent lead to that prejudice being broken down I would be more than delighted to show hon. Members the current coin as well as the previous issues. It is a coin of great joy to children and to all collectors, and the reason why we do not see these coins today is that they were all snapped up by the American troops as souvenirs. I had the greatest difficulty in getting a few

Ireland although it is very often customary to state at the end of a Bill that it does or does not relate to Northern Ireland. I raise this for the simple reason that some people would like to be certain on that point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Northern Ireland, not Eire?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Northern Ireland.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Mr. Glenvil Hall indicated assent.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, at the end, to insert:

examples. There are a few other things I would like to say about them. In the old days there was always an inscription "Decus et tutamen" on the edge of the coin instead of milling, although the last two issues have not had it. When it is issued in the new coinage it would be rather nice to have an inscription round it again. It would be the only British coin with an inscription round the edge. The last two issues have had on the reverse a representation of the Royal Arms. Several previous issues had very handsome representations of St. George and the Dragon. I think it is time that St. George and the Dragon returned to an honourable place in our coinage. It has always been a magnificent symbol of this country and never more than now when we have just emerged victorious from a great war, having slain the dragon. Let that be the symbol of our approach to the many difficulties of today.

I hope the crown will be retained in the list of coins, and I hope its circulation will be increased, with a new design on which our national patron saint shall play his historic part in the coinage of this Realm. I am told by those who know
better than anyone else that the Amendment is correct. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it. By doing so he will be doing a minor piece of work of historic value.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am very happy to say that the Government are able on this occasion to accept this Amendment, and to see that it is embodied in the Bill. I


ought perhaps to add that in actual fact no Amendment is necessary. The reason why the crown does not appear in the Schedule is that for sometime now crowns have not been made. But that does not mean that they cannot legally be made. They can be made under the original 1870 Act and power is taken by Proclamation under this Bill in Clause 3 for the crown to be made again. I look forward to the time when they will be made again. I remember as a small boy how fascinated I used to be by a crown piece, and particularly with the wording round the edge, and St. George and the Dragon on the reverse. I think we should show more imagination in what we put on the reverse of our coins. I was delighted when the little robin was put on the farthing.—[HON. MEMBERS: "A wren."]—It is a wren, is it? Of course it is. We should show similar imagination when we come to happier times than these.
I must warn the Committee that although we are inserting this in the Bill, and are happy to do so, it may be some time, for technical reasons, before crown pieces are made again. They are difficult to make. If hon. Members do not see crown pieces straightaway, they must not imagine the Government have gone back on their word. Sometime we hope to see crown pieces back again.

Mr. Nicholson: I am very pleased to thank the hon. Gentleman for having accepted my Amendment so courteously and I derive great satisfaction from the fact that the crown will be made again.

Mr. Skinnard: In adding my gratification for the acceptance of the Amendment, might I make a suggestion which might appeal to the numismatic interest of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson)? It is that when the form of the new five shilling piece is being considered, the Financial Secretary might consider the possibility of a return to one of the earlier forms of the crown piece—the beautiful rose noble—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is a little wide of the mark. He is not speaking to the Amendment.

Amendment; agreed to.

Schedule; as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

2.27 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: I very much regret that this Bill should be put on the Statute Book in its present form and that we are all to have cupro-nickel coinage—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry. I am afraid we disposed of cupro-nickel coinage some time ago.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) [MONEY)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of National Insurance to give effect to arrangements for paying unemployment benefit to persons ordinarily resident in Eire who have served in His Majesty's Forces, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, and the National Insurance Act, 1946.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Payment out of Unemployment Fund of cost of unemployment benefit in Eire to former members of His Majesty's forces.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I have only one query in regard to Clause 1.


If the Minister will look at line T8 on page 1, he will see the most horrible double preposition. It speaks of the Minister making provision
to meet the said cost in accordance with the arrangements as for the time being in force.
I am sure that that would have been objected to by any of my hon. Friends who represent university constituencies if they had been in their place today. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have a look at the matter before the Bill goes to another place.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I will.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLAND (ELECTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

2.32 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I wish to deal with the question of free elections in Poland. I think it must be admitted that when the leading writers in some of our papers are discussing this problem the matter is of some importance. Before I begin my argument, I wish to read what is the fundamental matter relative to it. I refer to the Agreement which deals with the question of Poland following what had been done at Yalta. It said that the three Powers noted that the Polish Provisional Government, in accordance with the decisions of the Crimea Conference, had agreed to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot. All democratic and anti-Nazi parties would have the right to take part and to put forward candidates; and representatives of all the Allied Press should enjoy full freedom to report to the world upon developments in Poland before and during the elections. That is the fundamental position. That statement was signed by representatives of this country, the United States and the U.S.S.R. I think most of us will admit that when three powerful Allies sign a document of

that character there must he some definite obligations attached to it.
Those obligations must be attached not only to the parties who signed the document but also to the Provisional Government of Poland set up under the Agreement. The whole point is that that Provisional Government was expected to have free elections in Poland as soon as possible. It must be understood that unfortunately that Government was not exactly representative of the people of Poland. I think that is accepted. It was largely to please one Power that certain people were introduced into that Provisional Government. The question now arises why there should be any trouble at this juncture, almost two years since the matter was dealt with, in securing free elections in Poland. Why should leading writers, representative even of the Labour movement today, be writing in the strain that conditions are such that it is unwise really to have elections in Poland today?
Various reasons are put forward by these writers, and to one who has been connected with the Labour movement ever since it was a movement, who upheld that movement because of its moral foundations and the vital principles of freedom, it is amazing that today these men are writing in this manner. One of the excuses put forward by Mr. Laski writing in "Forward" was that if the constitutional method is adopted, if freedom is allowed in Poland, we must realise that the effect is likely to be anti-Russian and anti-Jewish. Bearing in mind the historical experience of our nation, how the Irish fought for years for a real voice in the control of their country, and the facilities for freedom which we have today, are we, and particularly the Labour movement, to be guided and governed in our decisions like this?
Because we think that freedom is not likely to give us what we want, are we prepared to stand against freedom and to allow despotism to be pushed upon a nation who for years fought with us in one of the greatest fights that has ever been? Surely, there is an obligation not only upon this Government but upon the Labour movement. Instead of trying to hinder the implementation of free elections in Poland, the Labour Government should have been standing unitedly behind the demand of the


Polish people for a free election so that they might decide the issue as to which party they wish to control their country. There is no doubt that this unreasonable attitude has been adopted because of propaganda from given points of view, propaganda which ignores freedom, and because the people who disseminate it are satisfied with the men in power in Poland today, regardless of how they got there. Because they are satisfied with the personality of the people actually governing Poland at the present moment, they are not prepared to act up to the principles of their party or of the movement which has had the adherence of the people of this country for years.
Let us take the "Tribune" for instance. What in reality is it emphasising today? It is rather remarkable, but the writer dealing with this problem in the "Tribune" definitely puts forward the view that, despite all the trouble that has existed in the country and despite all the intimidation and the want of real freedom there, the Peasant Party, the Polish Socialist Party and the Communist Party are all united and unanimous on three particular things. They are united on the question of frontiers, of social reconstruction—the three-year plan—and, in addition, of the land question. The Left Wing "Tribune" admits all this and yet it casts about on the question of whether there should be free elections in Poland. That amazes me. In addition, both Professor Laski and the writer in the "Tribune" admit the possibility that the Peasant Party, of which Mikolajczyk is the leader, might obtain a majority under a system of free elections.
To some people that would be a calamity, but why it should be I fail to understand. I do not think that because people apply their power in a democratic way and happen to elect a party to which I would not attach myself that, therefore, is a calamity. It may be a bit of a drawback and somewhat of a hindrance from my particular point of view, but, surely, in so far as any party is prepared to act and govern the country in a fair and constitutional way, that is not a calamity. Surely, we are prepared to depend upon the intelligence and the psychology of the people they govern. Is not that the principle for which we stand?
Many of our Labour people have advocated that in the Colonies and elsewhere there should be more democracy and yet they are hesitant about a place like Poland. I do not know why that doubt should be expressed. I know some of the Socialists in Poland and have heard expressions of opinion. While disagreeing with the Mikolajczyk party, I am not here to advocate one party against another; I am here to try to encourage the idea that if there is any country which ought to have real freedom it is Poland. We in this country, more than any other, should be the last to help prevent that coming about and should be the first to attempt to get ideal constitutional conditions implemented in Poland as soon as possible. To me, that is all important, something vital and something which I advocate beyond anything else. I should prefer the economic conditions to come later and to keep the freedom of the people rather than have the economic conditions advanced more quickly by dictatorship methods.
There are people in the Labour movement today who are tending in the direction of dictatorship. They encourage those particular principles and, to some extent, advocate them, despite their professed pro-gressiveness. I very much doubt whether the Labour movement will get the same support in the future if that principle tends to be accepted within the movement itself. Whatever split may arise within the Labour movement, it will not be on the question of economic principles; it will be on the question of real constitutionalism and real liberty.
That is where I stand, not because I have any particular feeling for Poland compared with any other country or for any particular class within Poland, but because I believe that if we do not continue to stand solidly within the Labour movement for constitutionalism and freedom of the people, not only in this country but in other countries, so that the people may put into power those of their choice, it will lose the support it has hitherto enjoyed. I do not wish to go into the matter too deeply today, but I would like the Government to give us some idea, if that is possible, as to what they are doing. It is not a question of a party; it is a question of the honour of this country, of the United States and even of the U.S.S.R.
The agreement about which we speak is unique. Since the war began we have had all kinds of unique agreements. To me the whole principle of Yalta and Potsdam was unique: an appeasement, and not something created and built up on the principle of freedom at all. It was a policy of appeasement, and its only saving grace, if it had any at all, was the principle that was inherent in that agreement. Despite the fact that perhaps we did not agree with some of those included in the London Government of the Poles, it is one of the most peculiar incidents in history, I think, that, when we have got through the crisis, when we have got through the military issue and when everything indicates that we are on top, at that juncture we have to separate from the people to whom we have been attached for years, fighting in the great struggle, and to throw over the Government acknowledged for years by our Government and that of the United States, and put new men in to govern Poland at the behest of other people.
There is a duty on the Government representing this country to see that the free elections are actually applied, and, when applied, that the whole of the regulations connected with those so-called free elections will be of such a character that they do in reality give freedom to the people of Poland to decide the issue of who they really want to control their country. I put it to the Government: Have they yet heard, and can they say, when those elections are to be held? Have they examined the new electoral law? Have they examined it closely, to see that everybody who ought to have a reasonable chance of voting will do so? Have they examined the problem to see that each party has fair representation at the different stages dealing with the elections—the registration of votes and the counting of votes? Have the Government themselves considered whether the Poles who fought with us for years, and who are now in this country, will have votes? Have they really gone into this problem? Have they got in touch with the people who matter in relation to it? Are they using their power to the utmost to really get these free elections implemented? I hope they are. I hope they are doing their best. I myself believe they will try to do their best, but the problem is whether they will succeed.
It is indeed a pity that that problem should exist. Have they consulted at all with the rest of the people who signed that document for the implementation of free elections? Do not they think there is a duty, not only to act themselves but to consider how their colleagues are acting with regard to implementing those free elections? If they have consulted with any of the other Powers on this matter how have they found things? What are the viewpoints of the other authorities who have to deal with it? These are questions which ought to be considered, which should be receiving—and I believe are receiving—the serious attention of this Government.
I do not pretend to know on whose behalf I am speaking, except that I am speaking on behalf of myself. Perhaps I speak on behalf of people who think along the same lines as myself. There may have been people who have gone to Poland and seen great demonstrations. Believe me, the Communists are the best demonstrators that have ever lived. If they cannot get demonstrations freely, they will get them by other means, as they get many other kinds of things. There have been many demonstrations in Poland. Some of our representatives did not see them. I do not suppose they ever knew about them. There have been big demonstrations in Poland, whether unfortunately or otherwise I leave other people to judge. I will pass no judgment. However, those big demonstrations were on behalf of the Peasant leader. Had they freedom to demonstrate? Some of our representatives have been trying to draw attention to the demonstrations in Poland. Those demonstrations were not allowed; they were interfered with by the Security Police. That is the kind of freedom which is prevailing. There can be demonstrations of a particular kind, but other demonstrations very often take place in fear, and often with great interruptions and trouble. To me, propaganda is a terrible thing in some ways. The propaganda that is always built up from particular ideals, regardless of truth—

Mr. Zilliacus: The hon. Member ought to know.

Mr. McKay: I do know.

Mr. Zilliacus: That is what I am saying.

Mr. McKay: I hope I do know. I expected the hon. Member to say somehing like that. That is a fact. It does not matter what subject one talks about today, one can get any amount of propaganda about it. One gets different viewpoints, and each man has to pass his own judgment on the stuff that comes forward for his inspection. After all is said and done, the man who wants to try to get at the truth has to read something of the other side's viewpoint; he has to find out the points of view of the other people, otherwise the truth is not likely to be arrived at. The reason, I think, is the fundamental intelligence upon which we depend in the Labour movement as elsewhere. I am satisfied that today the Polish position has been engineered; and it has been engineered in a definite direction. I am not satisfied that real freedom has existed in Poland, and I am not satisfied it exists now. Perhaps we may get the retort that it did not exist before the war. That is a great argument for the Labour movement to put forward, is not it, that because the party of a people has not had the fullest freedom which it should have had in the past we will see that it does not have it in future?
There are new principles, perhaps, coming within the Labour movement, and, perhaps, they are progressive principles and will help the movement on. I make no excuse for ventilating this matter here today. It is a matter of importance to this country. It is a matter of importance to men who fought and sacrificed for years to help us. Whatever our political viewpoints may be, surely, after all, there is some morality amongst us. When we make agreements, particularly between one nation and another— apart from those between one man with another—when great nations make agreements dealing with the future life and psychology and opportunity of a people, surely there is no party in this House prepared to say that those agreements shall not be carried out, unless and until they have been changed in a proper manner? I want to finish. I know other people want to get into this Debate. I wish them luck. I hope they will stand for freedom. I know that I shall get any, amount of criticism. That man who is not prepared for criticism ought never to enter public life. We have had any amount of criticism. Differences of opinion help sometimes, and encourage the

lackadaisical to be more enthusiastic. If I have encouraged any man, not so much to be a partisan, but to be an enthusiast for the encouragement of liberty, not only in this country but elsewhere, then I have helped some little, I hope, towards achieving something that is worth while.

3.2 p.m.

Professor Savory: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. J. McKay) on his very eloquent speech, and on raising this question in the House today. I think that the real question that we are discussing at the present moment is this: whether, in these elections which are about to be held in Poland, the Yalta Agreement will be fairly and fully carried out, because it is on account of the Yalta Agreement that the present Provisional Government holds office. What is the relevant clause in the Yalta Agreement? It is that the Provisional Government
shall be pledged to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot, and that in these elections all democratic and anti-Nazi parties shall have the right to take part and to put forward candidates.
The electoral law, which purports to carry out this clause in the Yalta Agreement, was passed through the Polish National Council, which, of course, is a purely nominated body, on 22nd September, 1946, by 306 votes of the Polish Workers' —that is to say, the Communist—Party and its associates against the Party of Mikolajczyk, against the Polish Peasants' Party of 40, who all voted against it.
What does this law provide, this law passed already at the end of September? It provides for the election of 444 deputies; all Polish nationals over the age of 21 are entitled to vote, with the exception of various elements which are described as disloyal, and among these are included people connected with the underground movement—that is to say, practically every Pole who took part in the resistance, the secret and underground resistance to Germany [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] in the siege of Warsaw.
Further it also refuses to allow Polish citizens now abroad to vote unless they have the approval or consent of the Warsaw authorities. The Polish Peasant Party proposed that the Polish Forces in Britain, and Forces who had fought in the Middle East, should have the right


to vote. Polish soldiers on active service, under the new law are to vote for the first tune in Polish history. Under either of the two Polish constitutions they were not allowed to vote. Now, the tear expressed by the Polish Peasant Party is this: that the same thing will take place as took place in the voting for the referendum, although I would prefer to call it a plebiscite, because a referendum is a constitutional challenge. It is a Swiss invention, and is not known to the Polish constitution at all.
What took place? Soldiers were brought up in squads, and made to vote openly in the presence of what I euphemously call, "political education officers." They were obliged to give their vote in batches, collectively.

Mr. Zilliacus: When the hon. Member says that Polish soldiers voted openly, is he contending that they did not go into the polling booths, and cast their votes without anyone knowing which way they had voted? No one accompanied them when they cast their votes.

Professor Savory: They had to vote as they were told by their political education officers, which is a euphemous term for the Polish secret police. The real intentions of this new electoral law are very clearly revealed in the provisions relating to the composition of the electoral commissions. The chairman and members of the State, district, and local commissions are to be nominated by bodies who are themselves nominated by the present Polish Provisional Government. It is these purely nominated commissions which will count the votes, and publish the results of this General Election. A very remarkable feature of this Polish electoral law is this: the amazing number of seats allocated to the lands recently acquired by Poland from Germany, infinitely more than the number of inhabitants justifies. Why is this immense proportion of representation given to these districts? For the reason that the Polish Peasant Party, the party of Mr. Mikolajczyk, has been prevented from functioning in these territories under the pretext of the German danger. Another excuse which has been alleged is the recent utterances of Mr. Byrnes, the American Secretary of State. In these districts, the Polish Provisional Government will have no difficulty in forcing on the electors a single list of candidates. There will be no opposition, and these men will be elected unanimously.
I would like to congratulate His Majesty's Government on their admirable Note of 19th August—with regard to these elections—which they addressed to the Polish Provisional Government. His Majesty's Government laid down four conditions in order that the elections might be held in accordance with the Yalta Agreement. I have studied the law very minutely, and the only condition I can find that appears to be fulfilled is that an appeal may be lodged within seven days of the announcement of the election result in any particular district. I want to be perfectly fair; I try to speak impartially and objectively. I want to recognise that the Polish Government have carried out this condition which has been laid down for them by His Majesty's Government in their Note of 19th August.
But what are the other three conditions contained in this Note? First, His Majesty's Government demand that equal facilities should be granted to conduct election campaigns freely, without arrest or threat of arrest, and without discriminating restriction of normal electoral activities. His Majesty's Government also demand that these privileges should be accorded to all democratic and anti-Nazi parties, in accordance with the Yalta Agreement. These parties are the Polish Workers' Party, the Democratic Party, the Polish Socialistic Party, the Polish Peasant Party, the Peasant Party and the Work Party. The Work Party, which I prefer to call Christian Democrats, in violation of this recommendation of His Majesty's Government, has been forced to suspend all political activity and, therefore, there remain on the scene the four pro-Government parties, which form the electoral bloc against one non-Communist Party, namely, the Polish Peasant Party. This is the party which has the courage to fight against this Communist bloc. How is this party being accorded the privileges and freedom on which His Majesty's Government have insisted? Mr. Mikolajczyk, in a speech in Danzig, said:
In the last few weeks over 90 of our members have been murdered in the Cracow and Kielce area alone.
During the Debate on the electoral law, the Communist and Socialist spokesmen charged the Polish Peasant Party with collaboration with the underground movement. That is a fair test of what will happen. It is prophetic. It shows the intention to disfranchise, under this pre-


text, as many members as possible of the Polish Peasant Party.
That is the first recommendation of His Majesty's Government. Now I pass to the second, very ably expressed, that
all parties should be represented on all electoral commissions at all levels and that votes should be counted in the presence of the representatives of all parties.
We have already seen that the new electoral law provides for supervision of the elections by nominees of the Polish Provisional Government only, so that requirement No. 2 of His Majesty's Government is not being fulfilled.
Thirdly, His Majesty's Government demand
that the results be published immediately in each voting district.
What does the electoral law say? That the announcement of the results need only be made 12 days after the voting. Judging by what took place at the referendum, we know that those days are required for various methods of falsifying the results.

Mr. G. Thomas: There were three weeks' delay in this country after the General Election.

Professor Savory: His Majesty's Government are advised by their experts in Poland, and that is why they laid down that the results should be declared immediately. Our Ambassador in Poland had experience of what took place at the referendum, and he was determined that this abuse should not occur again.

Mr. Orbach: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the plebiscite or the referendum?

Professor Savory: I am talking about the referendum or, as I prefer to call it, the plebiscite. They mean the same thing. If elections take place in accordance with this electoral law passed on 22nd September, there can be no doubt, because of the exclusion of all people connected with the underground movement, that the Government will be able to suppress any voter, and any candidate, they wish to exclude from the poll. My second conclusion is that as the members of the voting commissions will be nominated by Government nominated bodies, the electoral results, even if the elections are free and secret, may be falsified to some extent, as were the results of the plebiscite.
In order to have free elections, surely there must be freedom of speech. Even in the National Council that freedom of speech does not exist. The spokesman of the Polish Peasant Party, Mr. Wojcik, made a very eloquent speech in the Polish National Council against this new electoral law. But what happened? The Chairman of the Council, Mr. Bierut, continually interrupted him, and charged him with "offending the authorities," and finally arraigned him before the disciplinary committee of the Council. This was for the speech which he made in the National Council, where freedom of speech is surely intended to prevail. Mr. Wojcik, in that speech, which was published in the "Gazeta Ludowa," the organ of Mr. Mikolajczyk, although very considerably censored even there, according to this report which I have read, said that the local electoral commissions for the constituencies are entitled to deprive the elector of his right to vote and of his right to stand as a candidate. Why? The Constitution of March, 1921, on which these elections are based, provides that such deprivation of electoral rights can be pronounced only by sentence of a court of justice. Whole villages may be deprived—Mr. Wojcik went on to say—of the right to vote, under the thin pretext that they are connected with underground bands. Similarly, any prospective candidate may be debarred from standing by a decision of the local commission, which may charge him with having obstructed the struggle against the Germans when in occupation of the country.
These local electoral commissions in the constituencies are to be appointed, he objects, by the Provincial National Councils which are themselves entirely dominated by the parties of the Communist bloc. Another provision to which Mr. Wojcik objects very strongly is that provincial governors and deputy governors can stand as candidates for the election. This, he says, will certainly defeat the whole object of the polling. But the strongest objection which he takes to the provisions of the Bill concerning the rights of the representatives of the parties in the voting commissions is that there is no protection. He says:
We demand that their rights be clearly defined and that they should be protected against arbitrary imprisonment. Further, these local and provincial voting commissions are not going to announce the results of the


polling, but have to inform the Electoral Commisar General, who alone declares the result, and judging by what took place in the plebiscite we know and can foresee what will happen
These, then, are the objections put forward in the National Council by the spokesman of the Polish Peasants' Party. This party voted against the Bill and justified its vote by claiming that the new electoral law is anti-democratic and anti-constitutional, and that its whole purpose is to falsify the will of the people and to annihilate the fundamental principles of the Yalta decision and even of the Agreement made between Mr. Mikolajczyk and the men of Lublin when he entered the Government and that thus the Communist dictatorship will be perpetuated.
Speeches delivered in this self-appointed Polish Parliament are not allowed to be recorded in the Press. For instance, Mr. Nadobnick made a very important speech on the crimes committed by the Security Police in Kempno. That speech was forbidden to be reported in any organ of the Press. Mr. Burda made a speech describing the deplorable conditions prevailing in Southern Poland. All publication of the speech was prohibited.

Wing-Commander Millington: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you share my impression that this very long speech is being read, and whether that is in conformity with the Rules of this House?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, it is not supposed to be in Order that one should read one's speech, but one may, of course, fortify oneself with notes and that is what I thought the hon. Gentleman was doing.

Professor Savory: I have nothing here but notes, and those are necessarily rather full because I had to quote from the speech of Mr. Wojcik, the leader of the Opposition in the Polish Parliament. I have not written out my speech, but merely collected a few notes of which I have had to make use for accuracy of quotation.
In order to give detailed facts, for which we are often asked, I should like to cite examples of murders which have taken place of the leaders of the Polish Peasants' Party, with the dates, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will just allow me to read these

names and dates since I am afraid that I could not carry them in my head. On 1st September, in the village of Gory, in the district of Pulawy, John Henry Pecio, vice-chairman of the local organisation of the Polish Peasants' Party, was murdered, and, according to the Press, the culprits have not been found.
On 19th June, Joseph Jeleszuk, Secretary of the Polish Peasant Party, was murdered in the Miedzyrzecze district, and the culprits have not been found. On 13th June, Michael Zachariasz, Secretary of the local Polish Peasant Party, was killed in the village of Gory. The culprits were not found.
I must apologise to the House for speaking at this length, but I feel very strongly upon this subject and seldom have we the opportunity of putting forward these facts. In conclusion, I would like to say that, unfortunately—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to refer to matters for which His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible?

Mr. Speaker: There is some responsibility upon His Majesty's Government, because they have laid down conditions under which these elections are to be held.

Professor Savory: If the hon. Member had done me the honour of listening to me he would have heard me say that on 19th August, 1946, His Majesty's Government addressed to the Polish Provisional Government a note in which they laid down the necessary conditions for fulfilling the terms of the Yalta Agreement. Unfortunately, at the present time it is certain that Poland is under the domination of a non-European country, whose way of life and whose methods are, by their very nature, alien to hers. The methods are based—

Mr. Mack: rose—

Professor Savory: I am coming to the end of my speech, and the hon. Member can reply to me afterwards. These methods are based upon historical materialism, which is the very antithesis of Christianity. This alien domination has caused the bitter struggle of the Poles for the preservation of their Christian way of life. This Christian, Polish culture,


with all its natural features—adherence to Christian morality, respect for the human being and his natural rights, deep love of personal and natural freedom—constitutes, I am glad to say, the supreme obstacle to the aim of merging Poland into the expanding Communist bloc of States, under the leadership of the U.S.S.R.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Zilliacus: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be pleased at the encomium His Majesty's Government have received from the hon. Member who has just sat down. I hope my hon. Friend on this side of the House was also pleased at the reception given to his speech by the hon. and learned Member opposite. Both tributes were well deserved.
The whole burden of the speech to which we have just listened was that the Polish Government should conduct its internal affairs in accordance with Notes sent by His Majesty's Government. I question the very foundations of that thesis. We derive our authority in this matter from the Yalta Agreement. The three parties to it were the United States, the Soviet Union and His Majesty's Government. It is good international law to say that when a Treaty does not provide that it shall be interpreted and applied by a majority of its members, it can be interpreted and applied only by all the signatories jointly. When we are acting in this matter without the concurrence and agreement of both the Soviet Union and the United States, we have not the least shadow of right to interfere in Polish internal affairs. The only right we have under the Yalta Agreement is a joint right with the other signatories.
Moreover we have no moral right, after what we have done to Greek democracy, to give the Poles a lesson in their own internal affairs. It may interest His Majesty's Government to know that the fate of the people of Greece has sent a shudder of horror throughout the working class of Europe. The workers are determined that they will not suffer the same fate, at the hands of Britain or anyone else. I have been in Poland. My acquaintance with Poland goes back for 20 years. I speak the language and I know the people intimately.
The attitude of His Majesty's Government and of some hon. Members on the other side is an outstanding example of our famous British insularity. We have forgotten all about the very profound statement by the late Lord Balfour that democracy can only exist in a community where everyone is agreed on fundamentals. The whole point about the situation in Poland is that that country has emerged after many years of Fascist dictatorship, of which the economic backbone was the big landowners and big business, organised in the Leviathan, and represented by the National Democratic Party and Pilsudski and the dictatorship of the Colonels, the so-called Sanacja. After many years of that regime and many years of German dictatorship, a Poland has emerged which has at last purged itself of its big business men and landowners, and is trying to purge itself of the evil tradition of the two enemies. That tradition meant the perdition and partition of Poland in history. The tradition of hostility to her great Slav neighbour and our Ally, the Soviet Union, has been the death of Poland in the past.
To attempt to rekindle party strife and hostility to the U.S.S.R. in' Poland is a work of supererrogation. The last thing the Poles need is to be encouraged from outside to resume the age-old tradition of internal strife and international hostility to both her neighbours. Those are two things Polish democracy is trying to outlive and get the better of. How can Poland have our British Parliamentary conception of democracy in a situation where there are tens of thousands of people in the underground movement? The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Profesor Savory) mentioned the resistance movement. There were, in fact, three resistance movements in Poland: The Narodowe Sile Zbrojne, the National Armed Forces, which were Fascist; the Armija Krajowa, the National Army, a national and patriotic movement profoundly anti-Soviet as well as anti-German; and, finally, the resistance movement led by the Communists. In the last stages of the war—and it is important for an understanding of the present situation to know what happened to that resistance movement—there was the outbreak in Warsaw, which was one of the greatest tragedies in Polish history. It was an episode of death-defying bravery which came about at the instigation of men prepared to see Warsaw become a heap of


ruins rather than be liberated by the Russians. It was carried out without any liaison with the Russians as a desperate gamble, which, however, failed to capture Warsaw before the Russians got there.
The head of the Armija Krajowa was General Okulicki, who was dropped in Poland by parachute by the near-Fascist General Sosnkowski after being sacked by Marshal Sikorski for his anti-Russian attitude. These people have gone underground and a lot of them have infiltrated into the Peasant Party, the P.S.L., Mikolajczyk's party. That is not his fault. I do not think he wants them. The hon. Member for the University of Belfast mentioned various mysterious murders of members of the Peasant Party. Some were murdered by the Fascists because they were Left Wing leaders on the side of the Coalition.
I was in Poland quite recently when a whole list of interpellations by the Peasant Party as to what had been done in various parts of the country was published. The replies of the Government brought out the facts of the extremely abnormal situation, including the fact that many of the underground fighters have got into the Polish Peasant Party, of which they have become members while at the same time they are members of the underground Fascist resistance movement. In those circumstances it is an elementary method of self-preservation for the Polish Government to have an electoral law which excludes those people, who cannot be reconciled to the present regime. Democracy can only exist in a community where everyone is agreed on fundamentals. The whole point about the underground movement is that it does not agree on fundamentals in the present regime. The attitude of the underground movement and of General Anders' Army is similar to that of the hon. Member for the University of Belfast. In other words they are filled with a spirit of irreconcilable hatred and opposition to everything for which the present régime stands.
You cannot find room within a democracy for people who are prepared to shoot. You must have some agreement on fundamentals, and the Polish Government is perfectly right in framing its electoral laws accordingly. It is sheer madness for us to attempt, as we are attempting, to incite the Poles against what is

required in the interests of their own country, namely, to hold a general election at a time when the result may be to precipitate civil war in that country. That is the real danger, and that is why the Polish Socialist Party—because it is the Polish Socialist Party who initiated the electoral bloc and initiated the referendum as a means of trying to achieve some agreement on fundamentals—that is why the Polish Socialist Party are begging us not to try to make even more desperately difficult the problem of building up this new social order, and this new democracy in Poland, by trying to legalise the counter-revolution in Poland. Because that is what this conception of democracy leads directly to.
In conclusion, I hope very much that the Polish Government and the Polish community realise that there is no danger whatever of this country giving encouragement to those who are irreconcilable enemies of the régime; that there is no desire whatever to question the foreign policy of the Polish Government of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union. I believe that both the Government and the Opposition in Poland—Vice-Premier Mikolajczyk as well as everybody else—is most anxious that that policy should be accepted, and that we should not challenge the decision of the Poles to get rid of their suicidal tradition of hostility to the Soviet Union but that, on the contrary, we fully appreciate and agree with that foreign policy. I hope that whoever speaks at the end of this Debate will underline that point, and disassociate himself from the mischievous remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: Though I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Gates-head (Mr. Zilliacus), I, too, would like to make some caustic remarks about the speeches made by the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. J. McKay) and Belfast University (Professor Savory). I listened with great interest from the outset of this Debate both to the initiator and the seconder—for that is what the hon. Member for Belfast University proved to be. He ended with a peroration in which he referred to his deep love of personal freedom. Representing as he does a constituency in Northern Ireland where the Special Powers Act operates, that is a travesty of the truth. I did not find any


evidence anywhere when I was in Northern Ireland, nor have I in this House, that the hon. Member for Belfast University has in any way tried to get the removal of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland. This may be a very long way from Poland, but I submit it is an argument to show the sincerity of the hon. Member's remarks.
The question raised this afternoon was that of free elections, and for some reason we heard descriptions from the hon. Member about assaults on individuals. Likewise we heard quite a long statement from the initiator of this Debate with regard to the absence of free elections, but not one fact to that effect. Near the end of his remarks he challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to whether he had examined the new electoral law that was introduced last month by the Polish Government. I would ask, has the hon. Member for Wallsend looked at this electoral law? We were told the other day by the Foreign Minister that it is a long law, and it is quite evident from what has been said that the hon. Member for Wallsend has made no study of it. No one in this country can claim to be able to judge fully the democratic needs of another country.

Mr. J. McKay: On a point of Order. There are two points I want to raise. There is an assumption in the hon. Member's speech that the hon. Gentleman opposite was my seconder. I have never consulted anyone about being a seconder, for no seconder was needed. With regard to the electoral law, the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has no authority to say I have not studied the law. I have looked at the law as far as I have been able to examine it, and he is merely assuming things which he has no right to assume.

Mr. Piratin: Is that a point of Order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. McKay: The point of Order is that we want the truth.

Mr. Speaker: I was not paying much attention but, to be absolutely truthful, I do not see where a point of Order comes in.

Mr. Piratin: If it is an interjection, I will give way and answer it now. In connection with the firs': point made by the

hon. Member for Wallsend, I made myself quite clear in saying that it seemed that the hon. Member for Belfast University was seconding because he repeated the same points.

Professor Savory: I would like to point out that I have not even had the honour of speaking at any time to the hon. Member opposite in any way whatever.

Mr. Piratin: In that case, the hon. Members should get together, for they have much in common. For the sake of the Government Party, I very much hope that the hon. Member on this side will transfer to the other side. The House will forgive me for being caustic, but when I see this unity between two hon. Members of such different political—and, if I may-add the remark—religious views, knowing what is going on in Ireland today, I am very anxious about the real aims of such unity.
The question is whether the parties are free if the electoral law operates. The hon. Member for Wallsend quoted from the "Tribune" and on that built up his remarks. I have not read the "Tribune," I have not the time. I think I am right in saying that Mr. Laski said in the "Tribune" that should free elections be held in Poland it was likely to end in a majority for the Polish Peasant Party against the Left Election bloc. The offer was made to the Polish Peasant Party to take part in that election bloc. They were offered a proportion of seats more than that of the P.P.R., and of the Socialist Party. They refused this, and at one time were demanding 75 per cent, of the seats in the new Parliament if they participated in the electoral bloc.
In July there was a referendum, or plebiscite—whichever the hon. Member for Belfast University prefers. Of a total of 13,160,000 voters 11,857,000 participated; 90 per cent, voted. No one is suggesting that 90 per cent, did not vote, but, that although 90 per cent, voted, the results were not as they would have liked. That shows a free democratic vote, and a conscious understanding of the people's responsibilities, for it is a higher percentage than in most constituencies in this country. They were asked three questions, two of which were answered affirmatively by the great majority, including the Mikolajczyk Peasant Party. The other question, the abolition of the


Senate, was opposed by the Polish Peasant Party. Yet 7,844,000 voted for the proposals made by the Left Parties, and 3,686,000 votes were cast for the Polish Peasant Parties "No," to this question. Hence, there were 68 per cent, for and 32 per cent, against. I do not believe that Mr. Laski or anyone, is on the right track when he suggests that an election now would mean a majority for the Polish Peasant Party if there were a free vote. The Polish Peasant Party is free to stand in accordance with the electoral law, and we have no evidence, apart from the views and remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast University to show that the law is not a democratic one.
I want to deal with the question of parties to the electoral bloc and with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Gateshead. I thank the Government for the privilege of having been able to visit Poland. Not only I, but the Labour and Conservative representatives who were present, were informed of a number of facts relating to that position. I found that the best elements in Poland want a bloc not because of tactics but because of the need for rebuilding their country. They say that any violent election fight, as would result in Poland in the absence of this bloc, would not assist in the reconstruction of the country but would result in further chaos. That was the point put by the best elements of all parties. There are those, of course, who put these things second to the theoretical conception of democracy. I would say that the best democracy is the democracy which is trying to build up the country and to give the people a better standard of life. If it is necessary at a certain stage to have an election bloc, as is conceived by the Left parties now, it is only because in the circumstances of Poland, with the unhappy background of the past generation, it is necessary to maintain the national unity for reconstruction rather than that they should be split into diverse parties in order to have a "free for all."
One Minister put the matter to me in this way. He said, "It may do for you in England to have a 'free for all.' "Referring to the Election in July, 1945, he said that it was even possible for both sides to co-operate on the next day. He added, "Poland is different. We have never had a stable Government. We have not had centuries of freedom." Of course,

their point of view is that we have had centuries of freedom, and I did not then want to argue that with him. I prefer to argue that matter in this House, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) agrees with me. Nevertheless, that is their point of view, and I believe there is some substance in it. We must recall, with a certain amount of modesty, that we are not sufficiently competent to try to impose our forms of democratic elections upon Poland, a nation who are going through an entirely different life for that which we experience here. Therefore, I believe that the Polish Left parties are acting wisely in this matter.
The hon. Member opposite referred to members of the underground movement who were prevented from taking part in the election, members to whom franchise would not be extended. He said that, therefore, every one who opposed the Nazis would be affected. He must differentiate in this matter between the underground movement which existed during the war and the one which exists now. The underground movement referred to is the underground movement which operates with arms now and not the one which operated two or three years ago against the German invader. We must agree that that is right. Such people would be outlawed in this country. Hon. Members must not forget that we are in a much more fortunate position than countries like Poland where they have not reached the same stage of stability. The new electoral law has been criticised. There may be small points of detail which from the legal point of view of a Britisher may appear to require alteration. I did not hear the hon. Member who raised that point make such violent criticism in connection with the election in Greece. If I remember correctly, in Greece, women did not have the vote. Under this new electoral law in Poland, every one over the age of 21 will have the right to vote. This, at least, is an advance on the position in Greece where the hon. Member was quite satisfied with the position. May be, that is what he would like to see in his own country, but I do not think the women in this country would be very happy about it.
As I have said before, if we want to be critical, our criticism should start at home. If we want to be critical likewise abroad, then we must be uniform in that


criticism. It is rather upsetting that hon. Members like the hon. Member for Wallsend and the hon. Member for Queen's University are not uniform in their criticisms. If we want to be uniform there is a country just across the Atlantic where it is known that 14 million negroes in the Southern States are not given free franchise. This is in a Western democratic country. There are some English axioms which I observe as principles, and one is that "charity begins at home." Likewise, clarity begins at home. If we wish to criticise, let us criticise ourselves. If we want to go further, let us go no further than those countries which are most akin to us. The United States has often been likened to us. That is where criticism is required.
If I have taken my contribution a little further than was necessary it is because I feel that some lessons have to be drawn from the remarks made this afternoon. One such lesson is that, whatever good will may have been intended, the hon. Member for Wallsend in his concluding remarks showed what he was really referring to. He attacked the Communist Party in Poland and elsewhere, and, in that sense, he was supported by the hon. Member opposite who regards the Communist theory as anti-Christian and anti everything else for which he stands. In view of what the hon. Member stands for, I am proud to be a member of the Communist Party.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Mack: I will not trespass unduly on the time of the House because I know that everybody is anxious to hear the Minister's reply to this very important Debate. Like the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), not being fortunate enough to go to other parts of the world under Government sponsorship, I seized time by the forelock and went to Poland before this Parliament assembled. As the House knows, I was the first man there. I also had the opportunity of traversing the lands of Pomerania which have been severely devastated by the war. Only last night I had the privilege of dining with the Lord Mayor of Stettin, who is in this country on a short visit. I do not pretend that everything in Poland is democratically such as we and the Poles would like. Neither will I pretend that the form of

democracy to which my hon. Friend has alluded can be transferred to Poland, having regard to the difference of geography, history, economics and also of the kind of democracy which has been built up in the two countries over the last 100 years.
I would remind the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory), whose vigour, vitality and earnestness have never been in doubt in this House, that, as he himself must admit, Mikolajczk, the leader of the Peasant Party in Poland, is at one with the most Left wing Communists in Poland, and that a particular feature of foreign policy in Poland must be a firm friendship with Russia. I also agree with the whole gist of this argument from the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), who spoke with equal vigour and sincerity, as I can vouch for, because I sat in close proximity to him and could hear the passion coming from his lips. But I am afraid he must recognise that the whole of his case rests upon an incipient fear that, if Poland is allowed to pursue her elections in her own way, it will bring her too close to Russia. Being too close to Russia would be perhaps, in the view of some hon. Members, a danger to the possibility of effecting a reorganisation of Europe upon democratic lines. Whether we like it or not—and let us be honest about it—no serious person can deny that it is in the interests of Poland to be friendly with her great neighbour.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast University said—and I am rather surprised at him, as a professor, saying this—that Russia was a non-European country. I would remind him that geographically Russia comprises, in her previous border, over half the area of Europe alone, to say nothing of her territory in Asia. Apart from that, the fact remains —and the Poles recognise this salient fact —that, as far as the Poles in this country are concerned, it has been said that the majority of them do not wish to return to their own country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend advocates that they should be given an opportunity of voting in the Polish elections, that they should play an active part in the political future of the country. They themselves say, "We are not prepared to return to our country because we are not in support


of the Government there." It is one thing for soldiers to fight in a foreign country in defence of their own country and their country's interests, and to have full franchise. I suggest it is a very different thing for a large body of the soldiers of that country, permeated by vicious anti-Soviet propaganda, to reject their right to vote in the elections in their own country. That is a factor to be taken into consideration.
In the town of Stettin today the latest figures show that there are 110,000 Poles there, against possibly 6,000 Germans. At a comparable period last year there were only 20,000 or 30,000 Poles who had come into the town. They built themselves a community. They have started one of the most wonderful feats of reconstruction. In Stettin, as I have seen for myself, they are now building a steel bridge over the Oder and its marshes, where they had a wooden bridge six kilometres in length, and a most difficult thing along which to pass with any form of vehicle. They were held up by transport difficulties; they had the greatest difficulty in regard to food because they were deprived of the hinterland; they had to build some rudimentary houses; they had to reconstruct the shattered city as quickly as they could, and to form a town council and local parliament, as it were. They did that in spite of the difficulties I have mentioned. I spoke to them myself, and I was received with wild enthusiasm. Hon. Members can imagine how democratic they were when I say that they waved Union Jacks and sang the National Anthem seven times during the course of my speech. Of course, elsewhere that might have been a way of asking me to sit down. There was a brass band which blared away behind some curtains at the back of the hall; they played with enthusiasm, perhaps not too musically but certainly as robustly as they possibly could. I was told that was the Polish method of signifying their assent to the sentiments to which I had given utterance —not, as we would understand in this country, as a signal to shut up.
The fact remains, the Poles are trying to fight for a democratic principle. The Poles themselves believe—and I believe they will succeed, even having regard to all their difficult conditions—they will build up in their country a form of Government

which can be truthfully and seriously termed a democracy, such as the situation will allow. It is one thing to have an election in this country, where we have close communications: it is a very different thing to have an election in a country where is it not possible to reach a town 200 miles away in less than 24 hours' travel, in a train which is overcrowded to capacity, with breakdowns of communication and things of that sort.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Bing.]

Mr. Mack: I say to my hon. Friend, who is an honest man and has studied this matter, that he should not be deceived by this type of propaganda which is presented to him. I know he has been well briefed, but I also know he has the ability, intelligence and initiative to form his own judgment. I would suggest to him, if it is not too late in his life, that he should go to Poland and see for himself the conditions of which he has spoken, and I am certain he would come back and speak in a very different tone from that in which he spoke today.

4.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I am sure all of us are grateful to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) for beginning such a lively, interesting, and, perhaps, important Debate this evening. I do not think that ever, perhaps, in any Adjournment Debate has there been such a wide contrast between the points of view on the extremes on both sides of the House. At one time it was developing into a kind of competition in exaggeration. If I may begin, as it were, at the end, I should say that I noticed that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) said that 90 per cent, voted in the referendum, and that that meant that it was a democratic referendum. I immediately did some mathematical calculations about the poll at Mile End at the last Election, and I felt that the hon. Member had no solid ground at all for supposing that 90 per cent, meant a democratic poll, since he himself secured his seat on a 60 per cent, poll in Mile End. Therefore, I think we


must assume that he was grossly persecuted in the Election, or that, at any rate, the size of the poll does not show that the Election was democratic. Of course, it does not.

Mr. Piratin: I do not think the information of the hon. Gentleman is correct. The actual poll in Mile End was 68 per cent., and the number of people who had moved and been transferred as a result of the war amounted to another 8 per cent., and the total was 76 per cent.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member was less persecuted than I thought. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) raised a point of importance when he said that since the Yalta Agreement was signed by the three main Powers its interpretation was a matter for agreement between the three main Powers. I confess I had not thought about that before, but it seems to me, in the first place, that we can say that the Americans are with us. They sent a similar Note about these elections to ours. The Americans are with us. Therefore, we are, at least, in a majority; and if the Russians disagree it is always open to them to refer this question to an international court. We should be delighted to do so if that were their wish, and as a good international civil servant himself, I do not think the hon. Member could object to that.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that because the Russians have not protested—I know they have not joined us—when asked to associate themselves with the Anglo-American Notes, that that fact, really, in his view, gives His Majesty's Government the right unilaterally to try to interpret a treaty signed jointly by us with the Americans and the Russians? I do not think we have any such right.

Mr. Mayhew: The Yalta Agreement is quite plainly decided by the three Powers. The Note we sent was not unilateral. A similar Note was sent by the United States and the Russians, if they like, can have the matter referred to an international court. I have no doubt we should be delighted.

Mr. Piratin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but this is important. If we consulted with the United States about this, did we consult

with the Soviet Government before sending the Note?

Mr. Mayhew: Our Ambassador and his Russian colleagues are in close touch, and our views are very well know in Moscow. There is nothing hidden about them, and I do not see that my previous statement does not cover the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not the fact that the American Government originally sent a Note and asked us to associate ourselves with it, and that we did so, in even stronger terms; and that the American Government asked the Russians to associate themselves with it, and that they did not do so?

Mr. Mayhew: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will try to answer it, but I cannot do so now without notice. The hon. Member went on to say that we should not interfere in what was essentially a domestic Polish affair. Again, I cannot agree with him. This is not a Polish domestic affair. The fact is that at the Yalta Conference we agreed that these elections should be held, we agreed with the United States and Soviet Governments that we would cease to recognise the London Polish Government, which had been good Allies of ours during the war, and would recognise, instead, a new Polish Government, more representative than the Lublin Government, on the assumption that they would hold free and fair elections. Incidentally, we persuaded many Poles to go back to Poland and it is only fair to them and to us that the bargain should be carried out. I say, furthermore, that this is an international bargain. It is a matter of international obligation, and when we insist that this bargain should be fulfilled we are not interferring in Polish internal affairs at all. We are merely asking for another Government to fulfil their international obligations.

Mr. Zilliacus: Were not the Soviet Government a party to this bargain?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps I may leave that point now, as we have discussed it at some length, although perhaps I can comfort the hon. Member a little by giving him the assurances for which he asked. We have no intention whatever of preventing close cooperation between any Polish party and the Soviet Union, nor do we desire to encourage reactionary and Fascist-minded elements in the ways in


which the hon. Member has suggested. The final point made by the hon. Member for Gateshead was most surprising. Having said that we should not interefere in Polish domestic affairs, he talked about the insularity of the British people, and went so far as to quote Lord Balfour in support. I was delighted to hear that, because I must associate myself, in some small degree, with another non-Socialist—the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory). I listened to the exaggerated suspicions of the hon. Member for Belfast University with rather a critical ear, but, equally, I want to assure my hon. Friends on this side that we cannot deny all the facts which he quoted, not by any means. We cannot throw out the baby of truth along with the bath water of reaction, if I may put it that way. A great many of the facts quoted by the hon. Member for Belfast University cannot be denied, and should be faced by us, as Socialists. If we are to get at the truth of this matter—

Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman now speaks with the authority of the Foreign Office—and I congratulate him upon his appointment— can he state very carefully what are the facts, quoted by the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory), with which he agrees, because the hon. Member opposite made a number of statements, some of which the Under-Secretary may accept and some of which he may reject? I think we all ought to know which the Under-Secretary accepts, because he now speaks with the authority of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Mayhew: I hardly think that is necessary, because I made it clear that I do not accept everything which was said by the hon. Member for Belfast University, although there are things which he said which none of us can deny. If the hon. Member for Mile End wishes for detailed information, perhaps he would put down a Question. What, then, is the position in Poland? It is this: The elections have not taken place, and we have had no official notification as to the date. There is discussion in Poland about January, but, as I say, we have had no official notification. The position is that political freedom is being denied to very large and important sections of Polish opinion That cannot be gainsaid.
In particular, the Polish Peasant Party are having the utmost difficulty in carrying out their normal political work. They are denied the freedom of the Press, they are prevented from hiring halls for political meetings, they are persecuted by the police, and are prevented in many ways from carrying out their election campaign. Eighteen of their branch offices have been closed, and a considerable number of members have been arrested. Similar measures have been taken against the Work Party, under the leadership of Mr. Popiel, another Pole from London. This party were allowed to hold their congress in totally unacceptable conditions, and dissolved on 18th July because of censorship restrictions, administrative interference, and similar acts against the political rights of the party. Furthermore, the Polish Peasant Party have had greatly increased difficulties since their refusal to join the electoral bloc.
Some of my hon. Friends, and some of those who visited Poland recently, are in favour of a single list of candidates at the elections in the conditions as they exist in Poland today. I cannot say that for myself. On the contrary, in present circumstances, Mr. Mikolajczyk has no alternative but to contest the elections. It is true, as the hon. Member for Mile End said, that he was offered 25 per cent of the seats if he entered the bloc, but all responsible and reliable observers say that his support in the electorate is very much more than that. Some put it at three quarters of the total electorate.

Mr. Mack: This is a most important point. I was staggered to hear my hon. Friend more or less concede all the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Cavory) in regard to the alleged persecution of the Peasant Party. May I take it that he gets his information from the British Embassy in Warsaw, and, if that is so, would he not equally give way to the Labour Members of the House who were recently in Poland, and who made a report to the Government, giving their impressions of this matter?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, but the facts cannot be denied.

Mr. Zilliacus: They have been denied.

Mr. Mayhew: It cannot be denied that the Polish Peasant Party are working


under extreme difficulties. It may be that some people exaggerate, but we must take the facts into account. We do not want the Polish Peasant Party to be at loggerheads with other parties in Poland, but Poland is not the only country where genuine democratic parties cannot come to agreement with Communist parties. By no means is that the case.

Mr. Piratin: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Polish Peasant Party are genuinely democratic, and that all the other parties are Communist?

Mr. Mayhew: No, certainly not. I shall say more later about the Polish Peasant Party. I think we are a bit too grown up in this country to believe that because a party cannot come to an agreement with a Communist party they are necessarily a Fascist or reactionary party. That is true about the British Labour Party, let alone the Polish Peasant Party. I deny that the Polish Peasant Party are a reactionary party. They are composed primarily of peasant and land workers, and include large numbers of industrial workers from all parts of Poland. Their programme includes a wide measure of land reform, and is composed, in many respects, of good Socialist principles'. Indeed, as far as the nationalisation programme of the Polish Government goes, the Polish Peasant Party are more advanced than the Polish Communist Party.
I do not think that it would be any exaggeration to say that the present viewpoint of this party is not far distant from the social democracy of the British Labour Party. So far as its programme is concerned, there is no reason for withholding our encouragement and approval from this party, any more than we should disapprove of other parties on the continent with aims like ours. The principal difference between the Peasant Party and the Polish Socialist Party is that the latter is collaborating closely with the Communist Party. Both the Polish Peasant Party and the Polish Socialist Party favour close cooperation with the Soviet Union. All of them, including the Peasant Party, want the Poles abroad to return to Poland, and the basic division between the Socialists and the Peasants on this is the degree of collaboration with the Communist Party. The Socialist Party con-

tains many Socialists with true international outlook, and we hope that even if the Communist-Socialist bloc election goes through, the Socialist Party will be able to choose its candidates freely, without having every individual case approved by the Communist Party. We do not believe that the masses of the Polish Socialists like this bloc system any more than many of the rest of the Polish people and His Majesty's Government like electoral blocs and single lists. They leave the voters no choice, and sometimes they are not so much the instrument of democracy as the suppression of it.
The electoral law has now been passed, and there is a translation in the Library, of which my hon. Friend opposite has obviously made good use, but I am afraid that we are still studying this long and complicated law, and I do not want to comment in detail on it at the moment. I do not endorse everything which has been said by the hon. Member opposite, but, at the same time, there are some novel features in the law according to Western European standards. Under Articles 2 and 3, it is possible to deprive a great number of people of votes under rather vague pretexts. I am inclined to agree that "connection with the underground Fascist movement" is a bit vague, and a little difficult to prove or disprove, and the same goes for "aiming at upsetting the Polish Democratic State." I feel that a lot depends on the interpretation of these phrases, and to put them into the electoral law makes it a rather novel business by European standards. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to look at them closely.
I would not have mentioned these points except that during the referendum of last summer many allegations were made, well founded, of irregularity, and I think that, in those circumstances, we are entitled to look at this law with great caution. The procedure laid down in the electoral law is a rather complicated form of proportional representation. It is operated by three kinds of electoral commission: The national electoral commission, the district electoral commissions and the local polling committees. While the national electoral commission and the proceedings of the local polling committees seemed to be very well devised, and attended with a good many safeguards, there is a vagueness about the composition


and procedure of the district electoral commissions. They have the job of collating and submitting the voting figures for each constituency.
As I have said, I do not want to go into details, but we will study it. I mention these points because I am afraid that the Polish Government is not standing by its international obligations and is taking a line which entitles us to look at these things with a critical eye. I can only repeat that we shall judge whether these elections conform with the provisions of Yalta and Potsdam by whether all the legally permitted parties get a fair, equal and above board election.
I do not think the House will disagree with that point of view. As has been said several times in this Debate, His Majesty's Government, throughout these proceedings, have made it quite clear that we expect the Polish Provisional Government to carry out the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements. As has also been said, we have, with the United States, presented Notes recently laying down the conditions which we think are essential if these elections are to be regarded as free and democratic. The terms of the Notes will be familiar to hon. Members and I need not give them again, but perhaps I should also mention that His Majesty's Government have not yet ratified the Anglo-Polish Financial Agreement. This Agreement was signed between His Majesty's Government and the Polish Provisional Government in July but has not been ratified because it is not yet clear that the Polish Provisional Government are fulfilling their obligations that free elections shall be held. I think hon. Members would go with me as far as to say that it is our duty and our task to see that these elections are held and held fairly. It might perhaps be asked, "Why not postpone them a little until things become clearer?" It might be felt that Poland deserved a spell of order

and peace to enable her to get down to the job of reconstruction before the elections, and if postponement would mean those things there would be a great deal to he said for it. National unity would undoubtedly help reconstruction but of course national unity can and must come after the free elections and not before them.
If we are going to have national unity let it be after the free elections, when the Government is representative of the Polish people, and not before. Surely that is the right and sensible thing? The great masses of the Polish people want a more representative Government and free elections, and if those elections are not held at the earliest opportunity then greater discontent is likely than if they are held now. All observers agree that there is much political discontent and even contention in Poland today, and it is due to the denial of reasonable political rights. That would not be solved by a further postponement of the elections.
I have done my best to cover as much ground as possible and to indicate the attitude of His Majesty's Government to this election question. I want to conclude by saying that we fought together with the Poles during the war as Allies. Indeed, as has often been said in this House, it was on Poland's behalf that we entered the war in the first place. Now the war is over we want to maintain with the Poles the same friendly connections that we had before, and we know that the great majority of the Poles themselves want this, too. We deplore the internal tension and we want the true state of Polish opinion reflected in the Government, and we believe that this can only come about by the holding of free and fair elections.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Four o'Clock.